1.

critically evaluate the changing nature of work, particularly in the context of

globalisation

2. critically analyse these issues in organisational structure and relate these issues to behaviour in organisations

3. critically analyse and prioritise current literature and key research in the field of management and organisations in multiple contexts and settings

4. critically evaluate managerial functions and organisational processes using a behavioural science framework

The External Contexts of Work This brief discussion of markets, technology, and labor force demographics and their roles in shaping the organization and content of work. Work structures vary in the pace by which they are exposed to, are affected by, or react to these forces. Occupational analysts and other decision makers who influence how work is structured need to systematically take into account the full range of factors affecting work structures and the consequences of their actions for the full range of stakeholders involved. How decision makers respond to changing markets, technologies, and demographics, the human resource policies and systems employed in organizations, and the work structures and outcomes they produce for organizations, individuals, and society are all interdependent. Changing Markets1 Change in Product Markets Since the demand for labor is derived from the demand for the products and services it produces, any effort to understand how work is changing must start with how product markets have been changing. Increased product market competition associated with globalization and deregulation has brought about two types of change: (1) downward pressure on prices and therefore on labor and other production costs and (2) increased pressure to compete in terms of speed, innovation, variety, and customization. Increasing Price Competition (by us org examples) The heightened price competition facing U.S. industry is the result of both increased international trade and the deregulation of domestic industries. Between 1980 and 1995, imports as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product rose sharply from 8 to 14 percent (Economic Report of the President, 1995). U.S. manufacturers faced lower-priced, high-volume goods from low-wage countries as well as relatively lower-priced, high-quality goods from high-wage countries such as Japan. Price competition in manufacturing fueled the demand for cheaper

services as inputs and, as a result, many service providers no longer enjoy protected or local markets. Changes in technology and deregulation (in such industries as financial services, transportation, utilities, and telecommunications), accelerated domestic competition among service providers, and the mobility of information technologies coupled with international deregulation in services led to higher international competition in services (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; McKinsey Global Institute, 1992). Deregulation in service industries has led to an influx of new entrants that have lower cost structures because they: (1) have no sunk costs in outdated technologies; (2) pay lower wages than those negotiated and enforced through collective bargaining in the oligopolistic structures of the regulated industries; and (3) utilize work systems and employment contracts that are more flexible and that in some cases rely more on nonstandard employment arrangements that shift risks associated with market uncertainty from the firm to the workforce (e.g., Belzer, 1994; Keefe and Batt, 1997; Lipsky and Donn, 1987). Deregulation has also increased wage inequality by shifting employment to the nonunion sector, in which wage inequality is greater Product Innovation, Variety, Customization, and Speed-to-Market Along with increased price competition, markets have changed in ways that require increased capacity and speed in developing and introducing new and more varied products. Product cycle times, for example, have declined significantly in recent years (Fine, 1998), and batch production has risen. U.S. firms have responded by experimenting with a wide variety of new forms of work organization (e.g., Appelbaum and Batt, 1994; Cappelli et al., 1997). For example, to reduce product development time and enhance innovation, firms have introduced various types of cross-functional teams. To improve manufacturing quality and flexibility and reduce time-to-market, they have reduced job classifications, increased job rotation and multitasking, and used shop floor teams and employee participation in problem solving and statistical process control. They have also gained flexibility by focusing on core competencies and efficient supply chain management. Although there is little direct evidence of the effects of decreased product cycle time on job content, the implications are that employees must adapt by continuously learning new skills and new product knowledge in order to produce and service new products. In sum, increased change and variability in product content is associated with new forms of work organization as well as new and more rapidly changing skill requirements of jobs. These changes have profound implications for our occupational classification systems and undermine the extent to which they map the reality of work.

Changing Financial Markets Researchers have paid less attention to how financial markets influence work structures than to the effects of product markets. Yet capital markets have always been recognized as having a major influence on the organizational forms that evolve in industries and societies (Chandler, 1977; Roe, 1994; Aoki, 1988). For example, the rise of large, integrated corporations in the late 1800s was made possible by the pooling of large sums of capital and gave rise to the dominant role that finance plays in American firms (Fligstein, 1990; Lazonick, 1992). Similarly, in the 1960s, the growth of large-scale conglomerates in the United States reflected the growing view that firms could diversify their risks by operating in different product markets subject to varied exposures to market fluctuations. In the current period, two changes in financial markets appear to be affecting the content of work: (1) the increased focus on shareholder interests and (2) the increased volatility in international capital flows. Shareholder Interests Developments over the past two decades have begun to focus attention on the role of financial markets and institutions in organizational restructuring and disciplining management to focus more narrowly and intensively on the interests of shareholders and other capital market agents. In the 1980s, the rise in the market for corporate control (Lazonick, 1992; Porter, 1992), the rise of shareholder activism (Useem, 1996), and the growth of agency theory within economics were all contributing factors (Appelbaum and Berg, 1996). For example, the 1980s wave of hostile takeovers, mergers and acquisitions, and leveraged buyouts created pressures on American companies to refocus their resources on their "core competencies" and to sell or close business units deemed nonessential to the company's main product line or service activity. Deregulation of financial markets, the growth of mutual funds, and the increased leverage of institutional investors put pressure on top management and led to new activism among members of corporate boards of directorsleading to the replacement of chief executive officers in a number of large and highly visible companies such as IBM, Eastman Kodak, and General Motors. Corporate boards have also tied an increasingly larger proportion of executive pay to shareholder value.

The net result of these pressures was to induce top executives to become more responsive to shareholder and investor concerns (Useem, 1996). In some cases, firms took preemptive measures and downsized in anticipation of future problems and in anticipation of a favorable stock market reaction, rather than treat downsizing as a strategy of last resort taken only in the face of an immediate crisis (Osterman, forthcoming). The evidence suggests that downsizing alone did not produce favorable reactions from the stock market, but downsizing combined with other restructuring moves did have at least a temporary positive effect on stock price (Worrell et al., 1991; Cascio et al., 1997). Although the direct links between these pressures and work content have not been well researched, it is apparent that these changes in financial markets provided additional incentives for major organizational downsizing and restructuring, which, in turn, profoundly affect the organization of work and content of jobsby collapsing multiple jobs into single jobs to reduce the number of workers, by dividing jobs in new ways to facilitate outsourcing, or by reorganizing work in new ways to improve productivity and competitiveness. Global Capital Flows In addition to financial market changes that link shareholder interests more closely to managerial decision making, the last two decades have witnessed a dramatic rise in the volume and volatility of global capital flows (Burtless, 1995). The relationship between these changes and managerial decision making with respect to production strategies and work organization also has not been well researched, but is important to recognize. The logical implications are that any given productive enterprise faces a more uncertain future, lacking certainty about what level of organizational performance is sufficient to attract and sustain the commitment of capital to investment in the enterprise. We can only speculate about how this heightened uncertainty influences managerial decision making with respect to the organization of work, adoption of new technology, demand for skills, and deployment of labor. In the case of the information services industry, market and technological uncertainty appears to lead companies to hedge their bets by merging and consolidating, on one hand, and investing in competing technologies, on the other (Keefe and Batt, 1997). But the responses to uncertainty are likely to vary significantly across industries and contexts. At a minimum, however, rising environmental uncertainty is likely to be

associated with greater variety in experimentation with organizational forms and greater instability in the content of work, suggesting greater challenges for the occupational classification system to accurately mirror the reality of work. We explore the combined effects of these financial and product market changes on the organization and content of work in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4. For now it is sufficient to note that they serve as one set of critical drivers of changes in employ-

Changing Technology Historically, advances in technology have had profound effects on the workplace and how work is conducted. In essence, technology and work are integrally related (Baba, 1995): work is the processes by which humans transform resources into outputs (Applebaum, 1992), technologies are the means by which the transforming is done (Perrow, 1967). Technology, therefore, shapes not only what people can do, but how they do it. Typically, technological change has three effects on work and occupational structures. It creates new occupations and reduces or eliminates some existing occupations; it increases the skills required on some jobs and decreases the skills of others; and it changes the skills required in ways that are not captured by "up or downskilling" effects. Because changes in technology occur with some regularity in most work settings, the reformatting of work by new technology is commonplace. Nevertheless, most technological change entails an incremental modification to an existing technological base. The effect of incremental changes can be dramatic, however, as many organizations that rely on computers discover when they switch to a new operating system (DOS, UNIX, Windows) or programming language (COBOL, C++). Incremental technological changes may alter the parameters of specific jobs, seal the fate of particular individuals, and even create or destroy entire occupational communities. But incremental technological changes are unlikely to trigger broad shifts in an occupational structure because they build on, and hence leave unchallenged, existing technological regimes. Broadscale occupational shifts usually require a change in the technical infrastructure. Digitization: Change in Infrastructure

The technologies of the second industrial revolution (interchangeable parts, electrical power, the electric motor, dedicated machine tools, the internal combustion engine, the telephone, the Digitization and Skills Over the last two decades, debate and research on the implications of digital technologies for the nature of work has centered on three hypotheses: deskilling, upgrading, and polarization. The deskilling hypothesis predicts that widespread use of digital technologies will result in less skilled, more routine work. Contemporary deskilling theory stems from Harry Braverman's (1974) influential book, Labor and Monopoly Capitalism. According to Braverman, by encoding production plans in computer programs, digital technologies enable management to transfer conceptual Changes in Workforce Demographics Trends in the Population and the Workforce Age, Fertility, and Family Structure Women and Mothers in the Workforce Racial and Ethnic Changes Educational Attainment Trends in Worklife Duration of Work

Meaning of Work Two major concepts are generally used to assess the meaning of work for the individual: (1) job involvement or work commitment is the extent to which work is a central life interest and (2) work values are the extent to which people place importance on various aspects of work. The ability to draw conclusions about trends in these two aspects of the meaning of work is hampered considerably by the paucity of useful data on worker attitudes. One dataset that does contain some information on trends in the meaning of work for Americans is the General Social Survey. This survey is a nearly annual, multitopic survey administered to a sample of roughly 1,500

adult, English-speaking American men and women (for an introduction to the General Social Survey, see Davis and Smith, 1992). QUES# 2 critically analyse these issues in organisational structure and relate these issues to behaviour in organisations(RELATES TO EHICAL PROB) ANS The imperatives of day-to-day organizational performance are so compelling that there is little time or inclination to divert attention to the moral content of organizational decision-making. Morality appears to be so esoteric and qualitative in nature that it lacks substantive relation to objective and quantitative performance. An effective organizational culture should encourage ethical behavior and discourage unethical behavior. Admittedly, ethical behavior may cost the organization. Even though ethical problems in organizations continue to greatly concern society, organizations and individuals, the potential impact that organizational culture can have on ethical behavior has not really been explored. What is needed in today's complicated times is for more organizations to step forward and operate with more positive and ethical cultures. It has often been said that the only constant in life is change, and nowhere is this more true than in the workplace. As one recent survey concluded, "Over the past decade, the U.S. corporation has been battered by foreign competition, its own out-of-date technology and out-of-touch management and, more recently a flood of mergers and acquisitions. The result has been widespread streamlining of the white-collar ranks and recognition that the old way of doing business is no longer possible or desirable" (U.S. News & World Report, 1989, p. 42). As the twenty-first century approaches, companies face a variety of changes and challenges that will have a profound impact on organizational dynamics and performance. In many ways, these changes will decide who will survive and prosper into the next century and who will not. Among these challenges are the following: (1) The challenge of international competition.

(2) The challenge of new technologies. (3) The challenge of increased quality. (4) The challenge of employee motivation and commitment. (5) The challenge of managing a diverse workforce. (6) The challenge of ethical behavior. While these challenges must all be met by organizations and managers concerned about survival and competitiveness in the future, this paper will focus on the challenge of ethical behavior. More specifically, this paper will (1) discuss some reasons' unethical behavior occurs in organizations, (2) highlight the importance of organizational culture in establishing an ethical climate within the organization, and finally, (3) present some suggestions for creating and maintaining an ethically-oriented culture. ETHICS AND THE CHALLENGE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR The imperatives of day-to-day organizational performance are so compelling that there is little time or inclination to divert attention to the moral content of organizational decision-making. Morality appears to be so esoteric and qualitative in nature that it lacks substantive relation to objective and quantitative performance. Besides, understanding the meaning of ethics and morality requires the distasteful reworking of long-forgotten classroom studies. What could Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle teach us about the world that confronts organizations approaching the twenty-first century? Possibly a gap in philosophical knowledge exists between organizational executives and administrators of different generations. Yet, like it or not, there has and will continue to be a surge of interest in ethics. The word "ethics" is often in the news these days. Ethics is a philosophical term derived from the Greek word "ethos" meaning character or custom. This definition is germane to effective leadership in organizations in that it connotes an organization code conveying moral integrity and consistent values in service to the public. Certain organizations will commit themselves to a philosophy in a formal pronouncement of a Code of Ethics or Standards of Conduct. Having

done so, the recorded idealism is distributed or shelved, and all too often that is that. Other organizations, however, will be concerned with aspects of ethics of greater specificity, usefulness, and consistency. Formally defined, ethical behavior is that which is morally accepted as "good" and "right" as opposed to "bad" or "wrong" in a particular setting. Is it ethical, for example, to pay a bribe to obtain a business contract in a foreign country? Is it ethical to allow your company to withhold information that might discourage a job candidate from joining your organization? Is it ethical to ask someone to take a job you know will not be good for their career progress? Is it ethical to do personal business on company time? The list of examples could go on and on. Despite one's initial inclinations in response to these questions, the major point of it all is to remind organizations that the public-at-large is demanding that government officials, managers, workers in general, and the organizations they represent all act according to high ethical and moral standards. The future will bring a renewed concern with maintaining high standards of ethical behavior in organizational transactions and in the workplace. Many executives, administrators, and social scientists see unethical behavior as a cancer working on the fabric of society in too many of today's organizations and beyond. Many are concerned that we face a crisis of ethics in the West that is undermining our competitive strength. This crisis involves business-people, government officials, customers, and employees. Especially worrisome is unethical behavior among employees at all levels of the organization. For example, a recent study found that employees accounted for a higher percentage of retail thefts than did customers (Silverstein, 1989). The study estimated that one in every fifteen employees steals from his or her employer. In addition, we hear about illegal and unethical behavior on Wall Street, pension scandals in which disreputable executives gamble on risky business ventures with employees' retirement funds, companies that expose their workers to hazardous working conditions, and blatant favoritism in hiring and promotion practices. Although such practices occur throughout the world, their presence nonetheless serves to remind us of the challenge facing organizations.

This challenge is especially difficult because standards for what constitutes ethical behavior lie in a "grey zone" where clear-cut right-versus wrong answers may not always exist. As a result, sometimes unethical behavior is forced on organizations by the environment in which it exists and laws such as the Foreign Corruption Practices Act. For example, if you were a sales representative for an American company abroad and your foreign competitors used bribes to get business, what would you do? In the United States such behavior is illegal, yet it is perfectly acceptable in other countries. What is ethical here? Similarly, in many countries women are systematically discriminated against in the workplace; it is felt that their place is in the home. In the United States, again, this practice is illegal. If you ran an American company in one of these countries, would you hire women in important positions? If you did, your company might be isolated in the larger business community, and you might lose business. If you did not, you might be violating what most Americans believe to be fair business practices. The effective management of ethical issues requires that organizations ensure that their managers and employees know how to deal with ethical issues in their everyday work lives. Therefore, organizational members must first understand some of the underlying reasons for the occurrence of unethical practices. The potential for individuals and organizations to behave unethically is limitless. Unfortunately, this potential is too frequently realized. Consider, for example, how greed overtook concerns about human welfare when the Manville Corporation suppressed evidence that asbestos inhalation was killing its employees, or when Ford failed to correct a known defect that made its Pinto vulnerable to gas tank explosions following low speed rear-end collisions (Bucholz, I 989). Companies that dump dangerous medical waste materials into our rivers and oceans also appear to favor their own interests over public safety and welfare. Although these examples are better known than many others, they do not appear to be unusual. In fact, the story they tell may be far more typical than we would like, as one expert estimates that about two-thirds of the 500 largest American corporations have been involved in one form of illegal behavior or another Unfortunately, unethical organizational practices are embarrassingly commonplace. It is easy to define such practices as dumping polluted chemical wastes into rivers, insider trading on Wall Street, overcharging the government for Medicaid services, and institutions like Stanford

University inappropriately using taxpayer money to buy a yacht or to enlarge their President's bed in his home as morally wrong. Yet these and many other unethical practices go on almost routinely in many organizations. Why is this so? In other words, what accounts for the unethical actions of people in organizations, more specifically, why do people commit those unethical actions in which individuals knew or should have known that the organization was committing an unethical act? An example recently provided by Baucus and Near (1991) helps to illustrate this distinction. Recently, a federal court judge found Allegheny Bottling, a Pepsi-Cola bottling franchise, guilty of price fixing. The firm had ended years of cola wars by setting prices with its major competitor, Mid-Atlantic Coca-Cola Bottling (New York Times, 1988). Since evidence showed most executives in the firm knew of the illegal price-fixing scheme, the court not only fined Allegheny $1 million but also sentenced it to three years in prison--a sentence that was suspended since a firm cannot be imprisoned. However, the unusual penalty allowed the judge to place the firm on probation and significantly restrict its operations. In another case, Harris Corporation pleaded no contest to charges that it participated in a kickback scheme involving a defense department loan to the Philippines (Wall Street Journal, 1989). Although this plea cost the firm $500,000 in fines and civil claims, Harris's chief executive said the firm and its employees were not guilty of criminal conduct; he maintained that top managers pleaded no contest because the costs associated with litigation would have been greater than the fines, and litigation would have diverted management attention from firm operations. Although both cases appear to be instances of illegal corporate behavior, there is an important distinction between them. In the first case, Allegheny's executives knew or should have known the firm's activities were illegal; price fixing is a clear violation of antitrust law. Further, the courts ruled that evidence indicated the firm had engaged in the illegal act. In contrast, it is not clear that Harris Corporations' managers committed an illegal act. Some areas of the law are very ambiguous, including the area relevant to this case, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and managers may not at times know what it legal or illegal; thus, a firm may inadvertently engage in behavior that is later defined as illegal or unethical (Baucus and Near, 1991).

One answer to the question of why individuals knowingly commit unethical actions is based on the idea that organizations often reward behaviors that violate ethical standards. Consider, for example, how many business executives are expected to deal in bribes and payoffs, despite the negative publicity and ambiguity of some laws, and how good corporate citizens who blow the whistle on organizational wrongdoing may fear being punished for their actions. Jansen and Von Glinow (1985) explain that organizations tend to develop counternorms, accepted organizational practices that are contrary to prevailing ethical standards. Some of these are summarized The identifies being open and honest as a prevailing ethical norm. Indeed, governmental regulations requiring full disclosure and freedom of information reinforce society's values toward openness and honesty. Within organizations, however, it is often considered not only acceptable, but desirable, to be much more secretive and deceitful. The practice of stonewalling, willingly hiding relevant information, is quite common. One reason for this is that organizations may actually punish those who are too open and honest. Look at the negative treatment experienced by many employees who are willing to blow the whistle on unethical behavior in their organizations. Also, consider for example, the disclosure that B. F. Goodrich rewarded employees who falsified data on quality aircraft brakes in order to win certification (Vandevier, 1978). Similarly, it has been reported that executives at Metropolitan Edison encouraged employees to withhold information from the press about the Three Mile Island nuclear accident (Gray and Rosen, 1982). Both incidents represent cases in which the counternorms of secrecy and deceitfulness were accepted and supported by the organization. shows that there are many other organizational counternorms that promote morally and ethically questionable practices. Because these practices are commonly rewarded and accepted suggests that organizations may be operating within a world that dictates its own set of accepted rules. This reasoning suggests a second answer to the question of why organizations knowingly act unethically namely, because managerial values exist that undermine integrity. In a recent analysis of executive integrity, Wolfe explains that managers have developed some ways of thinking (of which they may be quite unaware) that foster unethical behavior (Wolfe, 1988). One culprit is referred to as the bottom-line-mentality. This line of thinking supports financial success as the only value to be considered. It promotes short-term solutions that are immediately financially sound, despite the fact that they cause problems for others within the organization or

the organization as a whole. It promotes an unrealistic belief that everything boils down to a monetary game. As such, rules of morality are merely obstacles, impediments along the way to bottom-line financial success. A similar bottom-line mentality, the "political bottom line," is also quite evident in the public sector. For example, when it comes to spending money, the U.S. Congress has no equal. Although much of this expenditure is for purposes of national concern, a sizable portion is devoted to pork-barreling. Pork-barreling refers to the practice whereby a senator or representative forces Congress to allocate monies to special projects that take place in his or her home district. In many cases, the projects have little value and represent a drain on the taxpayers. They do, however, create jobs--and political support--in the home district. This practice is common, because many members of Congress believe it will help them get votes in the next election. In some more extreme--and definitely ethically questionable--situations, such actions are designed to reward some large-scale campaign contributors in the home district. A case in point is the Maxi Cube cargo handling system. Funds for testing the Maxi Cube cargo handling system were written into the fiscal 1989 defense budget during the final Senate-House Appropriations conference at the request of Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania. The $10 million item was specifically targeted for a Philadelphia businessman (and contributor to Murtha's campaign) who was to manufacture the truck in Murtha's home district. The only problem was that the U.S. Army had clearly said that it had "no known requirement" for the handler. In response, Murtha was reported to be "mad as hell" at the "nitpicking" by the army. He pushed ahead anyway and used his position on the Appropriations committee to freeze a series of military budgeting requests until he got his pet project approved. And Murtha is not alone. Rep. Les Aspin of Wisconsin got the Defense Appropriations committee to include $249 million to continue making a certain ten-ton truck (in Wisconsin, naturally) that the army was trying to phase out. It, too, was unneeded, but Aspin wanted the project for his home district. Is this legal? Yes? Is it ethical? That depends upon your point of view (Morgan, 1989). Clearly, Murtha and Aspin thought it was appropriate, given the realities of today's private and public organizations.

Wolfe also notes that managers tend to rely on an exploitative mentality--a view that encourages "using" people in a way that promotes stereotypes and undermines empathy and compassion. This is a highly selfish perspective, one that sacrifices concerns for others in favor of benefits to one's own immediate interests. In addition, there is a Madison Avenue mentality--a perspective suggesting that anything is right if the public can be convinced that it's right. The idea is that executives may be more concerned about their actions appearing ethical than by their legitimate morality--a public relations--guided morality. It is this kind of thinking that leads some companies to hide their unethical actions (by dumping their toxic wastes under cover of night, for instance) or otherwise justify them by attempting to explain them as completely acceptable. It is not too difficult to recognize how individuals can knowingly engage in unethical practices with such mentalities. The overemphasis on short-term monetary gain and getting votes in the next election may lead to decisions and rationalizations that not only hurt individuals in the long run, but threaten the very existence of organizations themselves. Some common rationalizations used to justify unethical behavior are easily derived from Gellerman (1986): ** Pretending the behavior is not really unethical or illegal. ** Excusing the behavior by saying it's really in the organization's or your best interest. ** Assuming the behavior is okay because no one else would ever be expected to find out about it. ** Expecting your superiors to support and protect you if anything should go wrong. Within the literature on corporate illegality, the predominant view is that pressure and need force organizational members to behave unethically and develop corresponding rationalizations; however, according to recent research this explanation only accounts for illegal acts in some cases (Baucus and Near, 1991). In their data, poor performance and low organizational slack (the excess that remains once a firm has paid its various internal and external constituencies to maintain cooperation) were not associated with illegal behavior, and wrongdoing frequently occurred in munificent environments.

According to the model developed from Baucus and Near's research (see Figure 2), illegal behavior occurs under certain conditions. For example, results from their research showed that (1) large firms are more likely to commit illegal acts than small firms; (2) although the probability of such wrongdoing increases when resources are scarce, it is greatest when resources are plentiful; (3) illegal behavior is prevalent in fairly stable environments but is more probable in dynamic environments; (4) membership in certain industries and a history of repeated wrongdoing are also associated with illegal acts; and, (5) the type of illegal activity chosen may vary according to the particular combination of environmental and internal conditions under which a firm is operating (Baucus and Near, 1991). Baucus and Near also suggest that conditions of opportunity and predisposition are antecedents of illegal behavior. That is, rather than tightening conditions creating pressure for illegal acts, it may be that loosening ambiguous conditions create opportunities to behave illegally. In terms of the model presented in Figure 2, large firm size provided more opportunity to engage in illegal activities than small size; the former condition may make it easy to hide illegal activities. Rules, procedures, and other control mechanisms often lag behind growth of a firm, providing organizational members with an opportunity to behave illegally because no internal rules prescribe such behavior. Predisposition indicates a tendency or inclination to select certain activities--illegal ones--over activities because of socialization or other organizational processes. Baucus and Near (1991) avoid the assumption that a firm's managers or agents subscribe to a different set of ethical standards than the rest of society. Instead, they recognize that organizations, and industries, can exert a powerful influence on their members, even those who initially have fairly strong ethical standards.

As noted above, organizations operating in certain industries tend to behave unethically. Certain industry cultures may predispose organizations to develop cultures that encourage their members to select unethical acts. If an organization's major competitors in an industry are performing well, in part as a result of unethical activities, it becomes difficult for organizational members to choose only unethical actions, and they may regard unethical actions as a standard of industry practice. Such a scenario results in an organizational culture that serves as a strong precipitant to unethical actions. The next section looks at the organizational culture-ethical behavior relationship. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND BEHAVIOR "Do organizations vary in the 'ethical climates' they establish for their members? The answer to the question is yes, and it is increasingly clear that the ethical tone or climate of organizations is set at the top. What top managers do, and the culture they establish and reinforce, makes a big difference in the way lower-level employees act and in the way the organization as a whole acts when ethical dilemmas are faced. For example, there was no doubt in anyone's mind at Johnson & Johnson what to do when the infamous Tylenol poisoning took place. Company executives immediately pulled their product from the marketplace they knew that "the J & J way" was to do the right thing regardless of its cost. What they were implicitly saying was that the ethical framework of the company required that they act in good faith in this fashion. The ethical climate of an organization is the shared set of understandings about what is correct behavior and how ethical issues will be handled. This climate sets the tone for decision making at all levels and in all circumstances. Some of the factors that may be emphasized in different ethical climates of organizations are (Hunt, 1991; Schneider and Rentsch, 1991): * Personal self-interest * Company profit * Operating efficiency * Individual friendships

* Team interests * Social responsibility * Personal morality * Rules and standard procedures * Laws and professional codes As suggested by the prior list, the ethical climate of different organizations can emphasize different things. In the Johnson & Johnson example just cited, the ethical climate supported doing the right thing due to social responsibility--regardless of the cost. In other organizations-perhaps too many--concerns for operating efficiency may outweigh social considerations when similarly difficult decisions are faced. When the ethical climate is not clear and positive, ethical dilemmas will often result in unethical behavior. In such instances, an organization's culture also can predispose its members to behave unethically. For example, recent research has found a relationship between organizations with a history of violating the law and continued illegal behavior (Baucus and Near, 1991). Thus, some organizations have a culture that reinforces illegal activity. In addition, some firms are known to selectively recruit and promote employees who have personal values consistent with illegal behavior; firms also may socialize employees to engage in illegal acts as a part of their normal job duties (Conklin, 1977; Geis, 1977). For instance, in his account of cases concerning price fixing for heavy electrical equipment, Geis noted that General Electric removed a manager who refused to discuss prices with a competitor from his job and offered his successor the position with the understanding that management believed he would behave as expected and engage in price-fixing activities (Geis, 1977, p. 124; Baucus and Near, 1991). Pressure, opportunity, and predisposition can all lead to unethical activities; however, organizations must still take a proactive stance to promote an ethical climate. The final section provides some useful suggestions available to organizations for creating a more ethical climate. PROMOTING CLIMATE: SOME SUGGESTIONS AND STRATEGIES

Recent literature has suggested several strategies for promoting ethical behavior in organizations (Adler and Bird, 1988; Burns, 1987; Harrington, 1991; Raelin, 1987; Stead etal., 1990). First, chief executives should encourage ethical consciousness in their organizations from the top down showing the support and care about ethical practices. Second, formal processes should be used to support and reinforce ethical behavior. For example, internal regulation may involve the use of codes of corporate ethics, and the availability of appeals processes. Finally, it is recommended that the philosophies of top managers as well as immediate supervisors focus on the institutionalization of ethical norms and practices that are incorporated into all organizational levels. The philosophies of top managers as well as immediate supervisors represent a critical organizational factor influencing the ethical behavior of employees (Stead etal., 1990). Research over a period of more than twenty-five years clearly support the conclusion that the ethical philosophies of management have a major impact on the ethical behavior of their followers employees (Arlow and Ulrich, 1980; Baumhart, 1961; Brenner and Molander, 1977; Carroll, 1978; Hegarty and Sims, 1978, 1979; Posner and Schmidt, 1984; Touche Ross, 1988; Vitell and Festervand, 1987; Worrell etal., 1985). Nielsen (1989) has stressed the importance of managerial behavior in contributing to ethical or unethical behavior. According to Nielsen, managers behaving unethically contrary to their ethical philosophies represents a serious limit to ethical reasoning in the firm. Much of the research cited in the above paragraph implicitly and explicitly states that ethical philosophies will have little impact on employees' ethical behavior unless they are supported by managerial behaviors that are consistent with these philosophies. Managers represent significant others in the organizational lives of employees and as such often have their behavior modeled by employees. One of the most basic of management principles states that if you desire a certain behavior, reinforce it. No doubt, how ethical behavior is perceived by individuals and reinforced by an organization determines the kind of ethical behavior exhibited by employees. As a result, if business leaders want to promote ethical behavior they must accept more responsibility for establishing their organization's reinforcement system. Research in ethical behavior strongly

supports the conclusion that if ethical behavior is desired, the performance measurement, appraisal and reward systems must be modified to account for ethical behavior In many cases, mangers choose to do, go along with or ignore the unethical...because they want to avoid the possibility of punishments (or) to gain rewards. Organizations and their managers must understand that the above recommendations are key components in the development and maintenance of an ethically-oriented organizational culture. Organizations can also enhance an ethically-oriented culture by paying particular attention to principled organizational dissent. Principled organizational dissent is an important concept linking organizational culture to ethical behavior. Principled organizational dissent is the effort by individuals in the organization to protest the status quo because of their objection on ethical grounds, to some practice or policy (Graham, 1986). Organizations committed to promoting an ethical climate should encourage principled organizational dissent instead of punishing such behavior. Organizations should also provide more ethics training to strengthen their employees' personal ethical framework. That is, organizations must devote more resources to ethics training programs to help its members clarify their ethical frameworks and practice self-discipline when making ethical decisions in difficult circumstances. What follows is a useful seven-step checklist that organizations should use to help their employees in dealing with an ethical dilemma (1) Recognize and clarify the dilemma. (2) Get all the possible facts. (3) List your options--all of them. (4) Test each option by asking: "Is it legal? Is it right? Is it beneficial?" (5) Make your decision. (6) Double check your decision by asking: "How would I feel if my family found out about this? How would I feel if my decision was printed in the local newspaper?"

(7) Take action. An effective organizational culture should encourage ethical behavior and discourage unethical behavior. Admittedly, ethical behavior may "cost" the organization. An example might be the loss of sales when a multinational firm refuses to pay a bribe to secure business in a particular country. Certainly, individuals might be reinforced for behaving unethically (particularly if they do not get caught). In a similar fashion, an organization might seem to gain from unethical actions. For example, a purchasing agent for a large corporation might be bribed to purchase all needed office supplies from a particular supplier. However, such gains are often short-term rather than long-term in nature. In the long run, an organization cannot operate if its prevailing culture and values are not congruent with those of society. This is just as true as the observation that, in the long run, an organization cannot survive unless it produces goods and services that society wants and needs. Thus an organizational culture that promotes ethical behavior is not only more compatible with prevailing cultural values, but, in fact, makes good sense. Although much remains to be learned about why ethical behavior occurs in organizations and creating and maintaining organizational cultures that encourage ethical behavior, organizations can benefit from the following suggestions: ** Be realistic in setting values and goals regarding employment relationships. Do not promise what the organization cannot deliver. ** Encourage input throughout the organization regarding appropriate values and practices for implementing the cultures. Choose values that represent the views of employees at all levels of the organization. ** Do not automatically opt for a "strong" culture. Explore methods to provide for diversity and dissent, such as grievance or complaint mechanisms or other internal review procedures. ** Insure that a whistle-blowing and/or ethical concerns procedure is established for internal problem-solving

** Provide ethics training programs for all employees. These programs should explain the underlying ethical and legal (Drake and Drake, 1988) principles and present practical aspects of carrying our procedural guidelines. Understand that not all ethical situations are clear-cut. Like many basic business situations, the organization should recognize that there are ambiguous, grey areas where ethical tradeoffs may be necessary. More importantly, some situations have no simple solution ** Integrate ethical decision-making into the performance appraisal process. In conclusion, even though ethical problems in organizations continue to greatly concern society, organizations, and individuals, the potential impact that organizational culture can have on ethical behavior has not really been explored (Hellreigel et al., 1989). The challenge of ethical behavior must be met by organizations if they are truly concerned about survival and competitiveness. What is needed in today's complicated times is for more organizations to step forward and operate with strong, positive, and ethical cultures. Organizations have to ensure that their employees know how to deal with ethical issues in their everyday work lives. As a result, when the ethical climate is clear and positive, everyone will know what is expected of them when inevitable ethical dilemmas occur. This can give employees the confidence to be on the lookout for unethical behavior and act with the understanding that what they are doing is considered correct and will be supported by top management and the entire organization Quest#3 critically analyse and prioritise current literature and key research in the field of management and organisations in multiple contexts and settings Ans: Research is the systematic investigation into existing or new knowledge. It is used to establish or confirm facts, reaffirm the results of previous work, solve new or existing problems, support theorems, or develop new theories. A research project may also be an expansion on past work in the field. In order to test the validity of instruments, procedures, or experiments, research may replicate elements of prior projects, or the project as a whole. The primary purposes of basic

research (as opposed to applied research) are documentation, discovery, interpretation, or the research and development of methods and systems for the advancement of human knowledge. Approaches to research depend on epistemologies, which vary considerably both within and between humanities and sciences. Scientific research relies on the application of the scientific method, a harnessing of curiosity. This research provides scientific information and theories for the explanation of the nature and the properties of the world. It makes practical applications possible. Scientific research is funded by public authorities, by charitable organizations and by private groups, including many companies. Scientific research can be subdivided into different classifications according to their academic and application disciplines. Scientific research is a widely used criterion for judging the standing of an academic institution, such as business schools, but some argue that such is an inaccurate assessment of the institution.[1] Research in the humanities involves different methods such as for example hermeneutics and semiotics, and a different, more relativist epistemology. Humanities scholars usually do not search for the ultimate correct answer to a question, but instead explore the issues and details that surround it. Context is always important, and context can be social, historical, political, cultural or ethnic. An example of research in the humanities is historical research, which is embodied in historical method. Historians use primary sources and other evidence to systematically investigate a topic, and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past. Artistic research, also seen as 'practice-based research', can take form when creative works are considered both the research and the object of research itself. It is the debatable body of thought which offers an alternative to purely scientific methods in research in its search for knowledge and truth. The phrase my research is also used loosely to describe a person's entire collection of information about a particular subject. Etymology Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), 9651039, Basra - one of the early figures in the development of scientific method.

As per the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the word research is derived from the Middle French "recherche", which means "to go about seeking", the term itself being derived from the Old French term "recerchier" a compound word from "re-" + "cerchier", or "sercher", meaning 'search'.[2] The earliest recorded use of the term was in 1577. Definitions Research has been defined in a number of different ways. A broad definition of research is given by Martin Shuttleworth - "In the broadest sense of the word, the definition of research includes any gathering of data, information and facts for the advancement of knowledge." Another definition of research is given by Creswell who states - "Research is a process of steps used to collect and analyze information to increase our understanding of a topic or issue". It consists of three steps: Pose a question, collect data to answer the question, and present an answer to the question. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines research in more detail as "a studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws". Research is often conducted using the hourglass model structure of research.The hourglass model starts with a broad spectrum for research, focusing in on the required information through the methodology of the project (like the neck of the hourglass), then expands the research in the form of discussion and results. The major steps in conducting research are

Identification of research problem Literature review Specifying the purpose of research Determine specific research questions or hypotheses Data collection

Analyzing and interpreting the data Reporting and evaluating research

The steps generally represent the overall process, however they should be viewed as an everchanging process rather than a fixed set of steps. Most researches begin with a general statement of the problem, or rather, the purpose for engaging in the study. The literature review identifies flaws or holes in previous research which provides justification for the study. Often, a literature review is conducted in a given subject area before a research question is identified. A gap in the current literature, as identified by a researcher, then engenders a research question. The research question may be parallel to the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the supposition to be tested. The researcher(s) collects data to test the hypothesis. The researcher(s) then analyzes and interprets the data via a variety of statistical methods, engaging in what is known as Empirical research. The results of the data analysis in confirming or failing to reject the Null hypothesis are then reported and evaluated. At the end the researcher may discuss avenues for further research. Rudolph Rummel says, "... no researcher should accept any one or two tests as definitive. It is only when a range of tests are consistent over many kinds of data, researchers, and methods can one have confidence in the results." Scientific research Generally, research is understood to follow a certain structural process. Though step order may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following steps are usually part of most formal research, both basic and applied: 1. Observations and Formation of the topic: Consists of the subject area of ones interest and following that subject area to conduct subject related research. The subject area should not be randomly chosen since it requires reading a vast amount of literature on the topic to determine the gap in the literature the researcher intends to narrow. A keen interest in the chosen subject area is advisable. The research will have to be justified by linking its importance to already existing knowledge about the topic. 2. Hypothesis: A testable prediction which designates the relationship between two or more variables.

3. Conceptual definition: Description of a concept by relating it to other concepts. 4. Operational definition: Details in regards to defining the variables and how they will be measured/assessed in the study. 5. Gathering of data: Consists of identifying a population and selecting samples, gathering information from and/or about these samples by using specific research instruments. The instruments used for data collection must be valid and reliable. 6. Analysis of data: Involves breaking down the individual pieces of data in order to draw conclusions about it. 7. Data Interpretation: This can be represented through tables, figures and pictures, and then described in words. 8. Test, revising of hypothesis 9. Conclusion, reiteration if necessary A common misconception is that a hypothesis will be proven (see, rather, Null hypothesis). Generally a hypothesis is used to make predictions that can be tested by observing the outcome of an experiment. If the outcome is inconsistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is rejected (see falsifiability). However, if the outcome is consistent with the hypothesis, the experiment is said to support the hypothesis. This careful language is used because researchers recognize that alternative hypotheses may also be consistent with the observations. In this sense, a hypothesis can never be proven, but rather only supported by surviving rounds of scientific testing and, eventually, becoming widely thought of as true. A useful hypothesis allows prediction and within the accuracy of observation of the time, the prediction will be verified. As the accuracy of observation improves with time, the hypothesis may no longer provide an accurate prediction. In this case a new hypothesis will arise to challenge the old, and to the extent that the new hypothesis makes more accurate predictions than the old, the new will supplant it. Researchers can also use a null hypothesis, which state no relationship or difference between the independent or dependent variables. A null hypothesis uses a sample of all possible people to make a conclusion about the population

Ques#4 critically evaluate managerial functions and organisational processes using a behavioural science framework Ans The functions of management uniquely describe managers' jobs. The most commonly cited functions of management are planning, organizing, leading, and controlling, although some identify additional functions. The functions of management define the process of management as distinct from accounting, finance, marketing, and other business functions. These functions provide a useful way of classifying information about management, and most basic management texts since the 1950s have been organized around a functional framework. DEVELOPMENT OF THE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT Henri Fayol was the first person to identify elements or functions of management in his classic 1916 book Administration Industrielle et Generale. Fayol was the managing director of a large French coal-mining firm and based his book largely on his experiences as a practitioner of management. Fayol defined five functions, or elements of management: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling. Fayol argued that these functions were universal, in the sense that all managers performed them in the course of their jobs, whether the managers worked in business, military, government, religious, or philanthropic undertakings. Fayol defined planning in terms of forecasting future conditions, setting objectives, and developing means to attain objectives. Fayol recognized that effective planning must also take into account unexpected contingencies that might arise and did not advocate rigid and inflexible plans. Fayol defined organizing as making provision for the structuring of activities and relationships within the firm and also the recruiting, evaluation, and training of personnel. According to Fayol, commanding as a managerial function concerned the personal supervision of subordinates and involved inspiring them to put forth unified effort to achieve objectives. Fayol emphasized the importance of managers understanding the people who worked for them, setting

a good example, treating subordinates in a manner consistent with firm policy, delegating, and communicating through meetings and conferences. Fayol saw the function of coordination as harmonizing all of the various activities of the firm. Most later experts did not retain Fayol's coordination function as a separate function of management but regarded it as a necessary component of all the other management functions. Fayol defined the control function in terms of ensuring that everything occurs within the parameters of the plan and accompanying principles. The purpose of control was to identify deviations from objectives and plans and to take corrective action. Fayol's work was not widely known outside Europe until 1949, when a translation of his work appeared in the United States. Nevertheless, his discussion of the practice of management as a process consisting of specific functions had a tremendous influence on early management texts that appeared in the 1950s. Management pioneers such as George Terry, Harold Koontz, Cyril O'Donnell, and Ralph Davis all published management texts in the 1950s that defined management as a process consisting of a set of interdependent functions. Collectively, these and several other management experts became identified with what came to be known as the process school of management. According to the process school, management is a distinct intellectual activity consisting of several functions. The process theorists believe that all managers, regardless of their industry, organization, or level of management, engage in the functions of management. The process school of management became a dominant paradigm for studying management and the functions of management became the most common way of describing the nature of managerial work. CRITICISM OF THE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT By the early 1970s, some experts suggested that the functions of management as described by Fayol and others of the process school of management were not an accurate description of the reality of managers' jobs. Chief among the critics of the functional approach was Henry Mintzberg.

Mintzberg argued that the functional or process school of management was "folklore" and that functions of management such as planning, organizing, leading, and controlling did not accurately depict the chaotic nature of managerial work. He felt that the functional approach to the managerial job falsely conveyed a sense that managers carefully and deliberately evaluated information before making management decisions. Based upon an observational study of five executives, Mintzberg concluded that the work managers actually performed could best be represented by three sets of roles, or activities: interpersonal roles, informational roles, and decision-making roles. He described the interpersonal roles as consisting of figurehead, leader, and liaison. He identified three informational roles: monitor, disseminator, and spokesperson. Finally, he described four decision-making roles that included entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator. Mintzberg's challenge to the usefulness of the functions of management and the process school attracted a tremendous amount of attention and generated several empirical studies designed to determine whether his or Fayol's description of the managerial job was most accurate. While this research did indicate that managers performed at least some of the roles Mintzberg identified, there was little in the findings that suggested that the functions of management were not a useful way of describing managerial work. Scholars continue to debate this question. Research by David Lamond suggests that both approaches had some validity, with Fayol's approach describing the ideal management job and Mintzberg describing the day-to-day activities of managers. Thus, the general conclusion seems to be that while Mintzberg offered a genuine insight into the daily activities of practicing managers, the functions of management still provides a very useful way of classifying the activities managers engage in as they attempt to achieve organizational goals. PLANNING Planning is the function of management that involves setting objectives and determining a course of action for achieving these objectives. Planning requires that managers be aware of

environmental conditions facing their organization and forecast future conditions. It also requires that managers be good decision-makers. Planning is a process consisting of several steps. The process begins with environmental scanning, which simply means that planners must be aware of the critical contingencies facing their organization in terms of economic conditions, their competitors, and their customers. Planners must then attempt to forecast future conditions. These forecasts form the basis for planning. Planners must establish objectives, which are statements of what needs to be achieved and when. Planners must then identify alternative courses of action for achieving objectives. After evaluating the various alternatives, planners must make decisions about the best courses of action for achieving objectives. They must then formulate necessary steps and ensure effective implementation of plans. Finally, planners must constantly evaluate the success of their plans and take corrective action when necessary. There are many different types of plans and planning. STRATEGIC PLANNING. Strategic planning involves analyzing competitive opportunities and threats, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, and then determining how to position the organization to compete effectively in their environment. Strategic planning has a long time frame, often three years or more. Strategic planning generally includes the entire organization and includes formulation of objectives. Strategic planning is often based on the organization's mission, which is its fundamental reason for existence. An organization's top management most often conducts strategic planning. TACTICAL PLANNING. Tactical planning is intermediate-range planning that is designed to develop relatively concrete and specific means to implement the strategic plan. Middle-level managers often engage in tactical planning. Tactical planning often has a one- to three-year time horizon.

OPERATIONAL PLANNING. Operational planning generally assumes the existence of objectives and specifies ways to achieve them. Operational planning is short-range planning that is designed to develop specific action steps that support the strategic and tactical plans. Operational planning usually has a very short time horizon, from one week to one year. ORGANIZING Organizing is the function of management that involves developing an organizational structure and allocating human resources to ensure the accomplishment of objectives. The structure of the organization is the framework within which effort is coordinated. The structure is usually represented by an organization chart, which provides a graphic representation of the chain of command within an organization. Decisions made about the structure of an organization are generally referred to as "organizational design" decisions. Organizing also involves the design of individual jobs within the organization. Decisions must be made about the duties and responsibilities of individual jobs as well as the manner in which the duties should be carried out. Decisions made about the nature of jobs within the organization are generally called "job design" decisions. Organizing at the level of the organization involves deciding how best to departmentalize, or cluster jobs into departments to effectively coordinate effort. There are many different ways to departmentalize, including organizing by function, product, geography, or customer. Many larger organizations utilize multiple methods of departmentalization. Organizing at the level of job involves how best to design individual jobs to most effectively use human resources. Traditionally, job design was based on principles of division of labor and specialization, which assumed that the more narrow the job content, the more proficient the individual performing the job could become. However, experience has shown that it is possible for jobs to become too narrow and specialized. When this happens, negative outcomes result, including decreased job satisfaction and organizational commitment and increased absenteeism and turnover.

Recently many organizations have attempted to strike a balance between the need for worker specialization and the need for workers to have jobs that entail variety and autonomy. Many jobs are now designed based on such principles as job enrichment and teamwork. LEADING Leading involves influencing others toward the attainment of organizational objectives. Effective leading requires the manager to motivate subordinates, communicate effectively, and effectively use power. If managers are effective leaders, their subordinates will be enthusiastic about exerting effort toward the attainment of organizational objectives. To become effective at leading, managers must first understand their subordinates' personalities, values, attitudes, and emotions. Therefore, the behavioral sciences have made many contributions to the understanding of this function of management. Personality research and studies of job attitudes provide important information as to how managers can most effectively lead subordinates. Studies of motivation and motivation theory provide important information about the ways in which workers can be energized to put forth productive effort. Studies of communication provide direction as to how managers can effectively and persuasively communicate. Studies of leadership and leadership style provide information regarding questions such as, "What makes a manager a good leader?" and "In what situations are certain leadership styles most appropriate and effective?" CONTROLLING Controlling involves ensuring that performance does not deviate from standards. Controlling consists of three steps, which include establishing performance standards, comparing actual performance against standards, and taking corrective action when necessary. Performance standards are often stated in monetary terms such as revenue, costs, or profits, but may also be stated in other terms, such as units produced, number of defective products, or levels of customer service.

The measurement of performance can be done in several ways, depending on the performance standards, including financial statements, sales reports, production results, customer satisfaction, and formal performance appraisals. Managers at all levels engage in the managerial function of controlling to some degree. The managerial function of controlling should not be confused with control in the behavioral or manipulative sense. This function does not imply that managers should attempt to control or manipulate the personalities, values, attitudes, or emotions of their subordinates. Instead, this function of management concerns the manager's role in taking necessary actions to ensure that the work-related activities of subordinates are consistent with and contributing toward the accomplishment of organizational and departmental objectives. Effective controlling requires the existence of plans, since planning provides the necessary performance standards or objectives. Controlling also requires a clear understanding of where responsibility for deviations from standards lies. Two traditional control techniques are the budget and the performance audit. Although controlling is often thought of in terms of financial criteria, managers must also control production/operations processes, procedures for delivery of services, compliance with company policies, and many other activities within the organization. The management functions of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling are widely considered to be the best means of describing the manager's job as well as the best way to classify accumulated knowledge about the study of management. Although there have been tremendous changes in the environment faced by managers and the tools used by managers to perform their roles, managers still perform these essential functions Process An organizational structure consists of activities such as task allocation, coordination and supervision, which are directed towards the achievement of organizational aims.[1] It can also be considered as the viewing glass or perspective through which individuals see their organization and its environmen Pre-bureaucratic structures

Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is most common in smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks. The structure is totally centralized. The strategic leader makes all key decisions and most communication is done by one on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new (entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth and development. Bureaucratic structures Weber (1948, p. 214) gives the analogy that the fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine compare with the nonmechanical modes of production. Precision, speed, unambiguity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs- these are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration.[5] Bureaucratic structures have a certain degree of standardization. They are better suited for more complex or larger scale organizations, usually adopting a tall structure. The tension between bureaucratic structures and non-bureaucratic is echoed in Burns and Stalker's[6] distinction between mechanistic and organic structures. The Weberian characteristics of bureaucracy are:

Clear defined roles and responsibilities A hierarchical structure Respect for merit.

Post-bureaucratic The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic and one much more specific.[7] In the generic sense the term post bureaucratic is often used to describe a range of ideas developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast themselves with Weber's ideal type bureaucracy. This may include total quality management, culture management and matrix management, amongst others. None of these however has left behind the core tenets of Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist, authority is still Weber's rational, legal type, and the organization is still rule bound. Heckscher, arguing along these lines, describes them as cleaned up bureaucracies,[8] rather than a fundamental shift away from bureaucracy. Gideon

Kunda, in his classic study of culture management at 'Tech' argued that 'the essence of bureaucratic control - the formalisation, codification and enforcement of rules and regulations does not change in principle.....it shifts focus from organizational structure to the organization's culture'. Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic Organization., provide a detailed discussion which attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not bureaucratic. Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the postbureaucratic organization, in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision making rules rather than decision making rules. This sort of horizontal decision making by consensus model is often used in housing cooperatives, other cooperatives and when running a non-profit or community organization. It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people who normally experience oppression in groups. Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in complexity theory and organizations, and have focused on how simple structures can be used to engender organizational adaptations. For instance, Miner et al. (2000) studied how simple structures could be used to generate improvisational outcomes in product development. Their study makes links to simple structures and improviser learning. Other scholars such as Jan Rivkin and Sigglekow,[9] and Nelson Repenning revive an older interest in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments. Functional structure Employees within the functional divisions of an organization tend to perform a specialized set of tasks, for instance the engineering department would be staffed only with software engineers. This leads to operational efficiencies within that group. However it could also lead to a lack of communication between the functional groups within an organization, making the organization slow and inflexible.

As a whole, a functional organization is best suited as a producer of standardized goods and services at large volume and low cost. Coordination and specialization of tasks are centralized in a functional structure, which makes producing a limited amount of products or services efficient and predictable. Moreover, efficiencies can further be realized as functional organizations integrate their activities vertically so that products are sold and distributed quickly and at low cost.[11] For instance, a small business could make components used in production of its products instead of buying them. This benefits the organization and employees faiths. Divisional structure Also called a "product structure", the divisional structure groups each organizational function into a division. Each division within a divisional structure contains all the necessary resources and functions within it. Divisions can be categorized from different points of view. One might make distinctions on a geographical basis (a US division and an EU division, for example) or on product/service basis (different products for different customers: households or companies). In another example, an automobile company with a divisional structure might have one division for SUVs, another division for subcompact cars, and another division for sedans. Each division may have its own sales, engineering and marketing departments. Matrix structure The matrix structure groups employees by both function and product. This structure can combine the best of both separate structures. A matrix organization frequently uses teams of employees to accomplish work, in order to take advantage of the strengths, as well as make up for the weaknesses, of functional and decentralized forms. An example would be a company that produces two products, "product a" and "product b". Using the matrix structure, this company would organize functions within the company as follows: "product a" sales department, "product a" customer service department, "product a" accounting, "product b" sales department, "product b" customer service department, "product b" accounting department. Matrix structure is amongst the purest of organizational structures, a simple lattice emulating order and regularity demonstrated in nature.

Weak/Functional Matrix: A project manager with only limited authority is assigned to oversee the cross- functional aspects of the project. The functional managers maintain control over their resources and project areas.

Balanced/Functional Matrix: A project manager is assigned to oversee the project. Power is shared equally between the project manager and the functional managers. It brings the best aspects of functional and projectized organizations. However, this is the most difficult system to maintain as the sharing power is delicate proposition.

Strong/Project Matrix: A project manager is primarily responsible for the project. Functional managers provide technical expertise and assign resources as needed.

Organizational circle: moving back to flat The flat structure is common in small companies (enterprenerial start-ups, university spin offs). As the company grows it becomes more complex and hierarchical, which leads to an expanded structure, with more levels and departments. Often, it would result in bureaucracy, the most prevalent structure in the past. It is still, however, relevant in former Soviet Republics, China, and most governmental organizations all over the world. Shell Group used to represent the typical bureaucracy: top-heavy and hierarchical. It featured multiple levels of command and duplicate service companies existing in different regions. All this made Shell apprehensive to market changes,[12] leading to its incapacity to grow and develop further. The failure of this structure became the main reason for the company restructuring into a matrix. Starbucks is one of the numerous large organizations that successfully developed the matrix structure supporting their focused strategy. Its design combines functional and product based divisions, with employees reporting to two heads.[13] Creating a team spirit, the company empowers employees to make their own decisions and train them to develop both hard and soft skills. That makes Starbucks one of the best at customer service.[citation needed] Some experts also mention the multinational design,[14] common in global companies, such as Procter & Gamble, Toyota and Unilever. This structure can be seen as a complex form of the matrix, as it maintains coordination among products, functions and geographic areas.

In general, over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that through the forces of globalization, competition and more demanding customers, the structure of many companies has become flatter, less hierarchical, more fluid and even virtual.[15] Team One of the newest organizational structures developed in the 20th century is team. In small businesses, the team structure can define the entire organization.[14] Teams can be both horizontal and vertical.[16] While an organization is constituted as a set of people who synergize individual competencies to achieve newer dimensions, the quality of organizational structure revolves around the competencies of teams in totality.[17] For example, every one of the Whole Foods Market stores, the largest natural-foods grocer in the US developing a focused strategy, is an autonomous profit centre composed of an average of 10 self-managed teams, while team leaders in each store and each region are also a team. Larger bureaucratic organizations can benefit from the flexibility of teams as well. Xerox, Motorola, and DaimlerChrysler are all among the companies that actively use teams to perform tasks. Network Another modern structure is network. While business giants risk becoming too clumsy to proact (such as), act and react efficiently,[18] the new network organizations contract out any business function, that can be done better or more cheaply. In essence, managers in network structures spend most of their time coordinating and controlling external relations, usually by electronic means. H&M is outsourcing its clothing to a network of 700 suppliers, more than two-thirds of which are based in low-cost Asian countries. Not owning any factories, H&M can be more flexible than many other retailers in lowering its costs, which aligns with its low-cost strategy.[19] The potential management opportunities offered by recent advances in complex networks theory have been demonstrated] including applications to product design and development,[21] and innovation problem in markets and industries Virtual

A special form of boundaryless organization is virtual. Hedberg, Dahlgren, Hansson, and Olve (1999) consider the virtual organization as not physically existing as such, but enabled by software to exist.[23] The virtual organization exists within a network of alliances, using the Internet. This means while the core of the organization can be small but still the company can operate globally be a market leader in its niche. According to Anderson, because of the unlimited shelf space of the Web, the cost of reaching niche goods is falling dramatically. Although none sell in huge numbers, there are so many niche products that collectively they make a significant profit, and that is what made highly innovative Amazon.com so successful.[24] Organizational Structure Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational Structure In the 21st century, even though most, if not all, organizations are not of a pure hierarchical structure, many managers are still blind-sided to the existence of the flat community structure within their organizations.[25] The business firm is no longer just a place where people come to work. For most of the employees, the firm confers on them that sense of belonging and identity- the firm has become their village, their community.[26] The business firm of the 21st century is not just a hierarchy which ensures maximum efficiency and profit; it is also the community where people belong to and grow together- where their affective and innovative needs are met.[4] Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) developed the Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational Structure borrowing from the concept of Phenotype from genetics. "A phenotype refers to the observable characteristics of an organism. It results from the expression of an organisms genes and the influence of the environment. The expression of an organisms genes is usually determined by pairs of alleles. Alleles are different forms of a gene. In our model, each employees formal, hierarchical participation and informal, community participation within the organization, as influenced by his or her environment, contributes to the overall observable characteristics (phenotype) of the organization. In other words, just as all the pair of alleles within the genetic material of an organism determines the physical characteristics of the organism, the combined expressions of all the employees formal hierarchical and informal

community participation within an organization give rise to the organizational structure. Due to the vast potentially different combination of the employees formal hierarchical and informal community participation, each organization is therefore a unique phenotype along a spectrum between a pure hierarchy and a pure community (flat) organizational structure