It is now becoming a journalistic cliché to suggest that we live in the postmodernist era. We get to hear politicians and economists continuously referring to post-modern as such that define the realities of today’s living; however, we are rarely being given a definition as to what the term of post-modernism stands for. This can be partially explained by the fact that the application of rational definitions, when it comes to describing the essence of socio-economic dynamics in the modern world, often appears as being out of place.
The world is becoming increasingly “multicultural”, when classical economic and political theories that were meant to be utilized within racially homogeneous White societies, are often being deprived of their academic validity, simply because these theories are based on assumption that everybody is equally capable of relying on their sense of rationale when it comes to dealing with various existential challenges.
However, as practice shows, people’s racial affiliation does not only define their eating habits, their reproductive abilities and their political worldview, but also the very essence of their existential mode. In his article “Cultures of Reason”, Bruce Bower make it very clear that, for example, people with Asian ethnic background do not think as White people do: “In a variety of reasoning tasks, Asians take a “holistic” approach. They make little use of categories and formal logic and instead focus on relations among objects and the context in which they interact. In short, they direct their attention into a complex, conflict-strewn environment…
People in the United States, on the other hand, adopt an “analytic” perspective. They look for the traits of objects while largely ignoring their context” (Bower, p. 57). Thus, we can say that the essence of modern concepts of organizational culture and participative leadership is closely related to the fact that the application of old fashioned managerial approaches, which utilize rationale as its tool, can no longer be thought of as being fully appropriate. In its turn, this has to do with drastic demographical shifts that had taken place in the world, within a matter of last fifty years.
The most famous theoreticians in the field of economy and sociology, such as Adam Smith, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, George Simmel, Herbert Marcuse etc, were Europeans. At the time when they were working on their theories, the societies in North America and Europe were not being affected by “celebration of diversity”, which is why all classical approaches to managing an organization are essentially the products of White people’s rationale, even though that these approaches often contradict each other.
The problem is that people in multicultural societies do not necessarily share the intellectual values, upon which classical socio-economical theories are based. In this paper, we will explore this thesis at greater length, as it will allow us to define guidelines to effective organizational management, within a context of post-modernist realities.
In his famous work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Max Weber provides us with an understanding of the spiritual foundations of classical capitalism. He suggests that the emergence of Protestantism in Europe corresponded to the fact that, from the 16th century onwards, more and more people were realising themselves as what Weber refers to as “existential sovereigns”. They no longer needed God as their ultimate benefactor, because they were slowly realising themselves as semi-Gods.
The average Protestant is perfectly aware that material riches do not come from out of the sky and that he needs to work hard, in order to achieve financial prosperity. In fact, Protestants believe that it is when they are being fully self-reliant that makes God them love them. Also, unlike Catholics, Protestants always believed in the concept of racial purity, which is why even today, American White Protestants have a strongly negative attitude towards interracial marriages.
Thus, Weber discusses the rise of classical capitalism, within a context of the White race achieving global dominance in the world: “The spirit of capitalism, in the sense in which we are using the term, had to fight its way to supremacy against a whole world of hostile forces… Capitalism of today, which has come to dominate economic life, educates and selects the economic subjects which it needs through a process of economic survival of the fittest” (Weber, Ch. 2).
Thus, it is the rationality of White Protestants that turned the world into what it used to be, up until recently, when Whites began to lose their existential vitality. The reason why the concept of morality has not been incorporated in any of the classical theories of organizational management is that, according to Protestant mentality, existential ruthlessness is self-justifiable, as it allows entrepreneurs to effectively deal with competitors.
For example, the exploitation of child labour was a common practice in the 19th century and there were not many people at the time who would think of it as something inappropriate – after all, utilization of child labour allowed entrepreneurs to come up with even bigger profits, which according to Protestant beliefs, would make God bless these entrepreneurs to even further extent because Protestant God loves “self-made” men.
It is during the course of an industrial era that the classical theories of organizational management were being designed. The majority of these theories were aimed at increasing manufacturing efficiency as their foremost goal because it would allow industrialists and workers to make more money. For example, Frederick Taylor’s method of Scientific Management emphasizes that the prospects of receiving an increased salary should serve as sufficient motivation for workers to try to increase their professional efficiency.
In his book “The Principles of Scientific Management”, Taylor says: “The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee. It would seem to be so self-evident that maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for the employee, ought to be the two leading objects of management, that even to state this fact should be unnecessary” (Taylor, Ch. 1).
This is why the era of “wild capitalism” is associated with merciless exploitation of employees, who were often being asked to work for as long as 10 hours a day in exchange for an insignificant increase to their salaries. This era is also being associated with wide applications of authoritarian types of management, when decisions made in the main office, were being passed down for implementation on a managerial level. In its turn, it resulted in the rise of bureaucracy, as an entirely new social class. It cannot escape our attention that, in the time of industrial capitalism, the concept of bureaucracy was not being perceived by the majority of people as something definitely evil, as is the case now.
The beginning of an industrial era in the 19th century resulted in great diversification of manufactured goods. At the same time, the main indication of manufacturing vitality, associated with the industrial era, was a quantitative factor. It was becoming clear to most prominent economists of the time that, if the hierarchical principle of organizing production could not be disposed of, it would have to be rationalized, in order for an organization to utilize its full potential. Max Weber suggested that the new economic realities of the 19th century allowed the transformation of the notion of authority.
Since the ever-increased rate of manufacturing specialization started to affect social dynamics in every country of the world, it was only natural for this notion to become rationalized. According to Weber, it was only a matter of time, before people’s perception of authority would begin corresponding to the rational considerations, on their part, rather than to their irrational respect towards the charismatic leader. In his “Essays in Sociology”, Max Weber provides us with the insight on why bureaucracy is superior to any other form of social organization: “From a purely technical point of view, a bureaucracy is capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency, and is in this sense formally the most rational known means of exercising authority over human beings. It is superior to any other form in precision, instability, the stringency of its discipline, and in its reliability.
It thus makes possible a particularly high degree of calculability of results for the heads of the organization and for those acting in relation to it” (Weber, p. 145). In other words, the existence of bureaucracy, as a form of management, corresponds to the inner workings of the Western mind, which strives to rationalize the surrounding reality, in order to exercise control over it. This leads us to the understanding of the most important advantage, related to the existence of bureaucracy, as the tool of management practices – bureaucracy allows attaining the highest degree of operational efficiency, within the organization, because it utilizes the notion of instrumental rationality.
This type of rationality emphasizes the importance of doing “things right”, when any other considerations, associated with the process, are being referred to as irrelevant. However, the concept of “doing things right” as something that has value in itself, derives out of Protestant mentality, therefore, it can hardly be applicable in a multicultural society. In his book “Post-Modern Ethics”, Zigmunt Bauman explores the practical implications of rationalist mentality and comes to the conclusion that the essence of such mentality is utterly counter-productive: “The modern organization is the way of doing things that is free from moral constraints.
Because of that, cruel deeds can in principle be perpetrated by modern organizations from which individual members acting on their own would most certainly recoil in horror. Even if this does not happen, though, one harmful effect is virtually unavoidable: people who come within the orbit of bureaucratic action cease to be responsible moral subjects” (Bauman, p. 14). We can say that the value of a bureaucrat corresponds to his ability to act in a professional manner. At the same, this ability often requires such an individual to close their eyes to the practical consequences of his actions. This creates a precondition for so-called “white-collar crimes”.
The bureaucratic form of management can only be effective if managers remain impersonal, during the course of decision making. Ideally, bureaucrats should not be concerned about anything else but executing their professional duties, which can only be possible when they choose in favour of the impersonal mode of behaviour, when it comes to dealing with subordinates. It is important to understand that the “personalization” of bureaucracy, at which contemporary criticism of this form of management is directed, actually represents its main strength.
As the article “Max Weber and the Idea of Bureaucracy”, which can be found on the site of Science Encyclopedia, states: “The adoption of the bureaucratic form by theorists of liberal government has its roots in the legal protection of natural (rational) rights for all. In fact, embedded in the rationalization structure of bureaucracy is the elimination of particularism” (Science Encyclopedia). It is the fact that the bureaucratic style of management imposes certain obligations on people involved in the organizational process, which became the subject of recent criticism, on the part of progressive sociologists and economists.
In his book “In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber, Organization, Ethics”, Paul Du Gay makes a very good point, when he suggests that: “’Businessing’ people typically consists in assigning the performance of a function or activity to an individual or group which is then regarded as being accountable for the efficient conduct of that function of activity. By assuming active responsibility for these activities and functions, these individuals or groups are in effect assuming and confirming a certain kind of identity or personality” (Du Gay, p. 65).
The reason why the bureaucratic form of management is being associated with organizational ineffectiveness, in recent years, is not that it contains some fundamental fault, in its very essence, but that people who hold bureaucratic jobs are simply incapable of using their rationale when it comes to making decisions because their existential mode is defined by irrationality. In its turn, this corresponds to their biological makeup.
The bureaucracy is the system of management, which relies on the quality of its composing elements. As we have mentioned earlier, one of the strengths of bureaucracy is the fact that it requires people with executive power to become completely impersonalized, when they make decisions that affect others. This is the most important precondition for the establishment of “social fairness”, in every particular organization.
However, as practice shows, in multicultural societies, it is simply impossible for many people that represent bureaucracy to adopt a rational approach for dealing with issues, because their racial affiliation suggests their inability to operate with abstract categories. Thus, we can say that post-modern realities suggest that the principle of “doing things right” is going to be eventually replaced with the principle of “doing right things”. This is the reason why in recent times, the concept of leadership that is being practised by many organizations, operates with such notions as “employees empowerment”, “transition-decision making” and “participative management”.
Apparently, in a multicultural society, employees can no longer be considered as such that are only being concerned about the prospects of receiving an adequate salary, as their main professional motivation. This is because their existential mode does not only correspond to rational considerations, on their part, as it used to be the case before the era of “celebration of diversity” has begun in Western countries.
Nowadays, more and more people think of their professional duties as such that allow them to realize their potential as individuals. They can no longer be treated as speechless subordinates who act as a cheap substitutes for robots. In other words, more and more people seek to combine the satisfaction of their material needs with the satisfaction of their emotional needs, during the course of their professional performance. In its turn, this created a situation when people in charge of designing organizational policies have realized that a specific psychological technique needed to be invented, which would make employees being innerly related to their work.
This laid the ground for the emergence of what we now refer to as “corporate culture”. Nowadays, employees are being encouraged to think that the organization they work for, along with their professional adequateness, also appreciates their existential uniqueness. In his article “Strength is Ignorance; Slavery is Freedom: Managing Culture in Modern Organizations”, Hugh Willmott suggests that the term “corporate culture” needs to be thought of within a context of psychological manipulation: “Big corporations possess the resources with which to construct and market an entirely heteronymous meaning of autonomy.
The impression of respecting the individual is managed in two, mutually reinforcing ways. First, the strengthening corporate culture, where the distinctive skills and contribution of each individual is sought and recognized, is contrasted with the denial of discretion and stifling of individual initiative associated with rational, bureaucratic methods of the organization” (Willmott, p.11). In other words, while retaining strict bureaucratic control over employees, managers are able to infuse them with the illusionary sensation of freedom.
Therefore, organizations that strive to instil employees with corporate values, do it for the purpose of concealing from workers the fact that they are still being rationally managed. However, we can only agree with Willmott, for as long as the Western concept of “corporate culture” is concerned.
In racially homogenous societies, such as Japan, corporate culture stands for entirely different values. Unlike the Western concept of “corporate culture”, which is based on the notion of the common good, Asian corporate culture is based on the notion of loyalty. In its turn, this makes it highly irrational and; therefore, being the most adapted to realities of post-modern, which many political scientists now refer to as the “era of neo-feudalism”. This is the reason why worker’s professional efficiency in Japan often appears as being twice as high as the one in the U.S., for example.
It is only in very recent times that many Western economists have realized that utilization of rationality, within the context of designing different managerial strategies, cannot be very effective in principle, when brought upon the multicultural ground. Nowadays, in order for managers to be able to attain a high degree of professional excellence, it is no longer sufficient for them to have skills of psychological manipulation.
Apparently, workers in multicultural society can no longer be satisfied with receiving “perceived” emotional satisfaction. Nowadays, they demand their emotional satisfaction to have objective properties. In their article “Leadership: the Management of Meaning”, Linda.
Smircich and Gareth Morgan, come up with the absolutely valid suggestion that the realities of post-modern living require managers to make sure that employees associate organizational policies with conceptual meaning, especially when it comes to choosing in favour of a particular type of leadership model, on their part: “Leadership is about the ‘management of meaning’ and that leaders emerge because of their role in framing experience in a way that provides the basis for action; that is, by mobilizing meaning, articulating and defining what has previously remained implicit” (Smircich, Morgan, p. 260). The concept of “management of meaning” is best defined as the establishment of conditions, at the workplace, which allows employees to fully utilize their professional potential.
Many companies strive to increase employees’ loyalty by instilling them with a team spirit, without understanding what the concept of “team spirit” stands for. For example, McDonald’s often requires its employees to work overtime, without being paid, because workers are expected to be concerned about the financial standing of the particular Company’s branch where they perform their duties.
However, there not even a single instance has been acknowledged of McDonald’s managers actually being able to logically substantiate to workers why do they need to be utterly dedicated to Company, given the fact that these workers are being paid minimum wages and are expected to instantly obey superiors’ orders. Thus, within the context of McDonald’s organizational culture, the concept of “team spirit” is being deprived of any actual meaning.
On the other hand, the reason why the concept of “team spirit” is being utilized by Microsoft Corporation, for example, is not simply to establish its reputation as an innovative company, but because Microsoft benefits from it, in the most pragmatic sense of this word. Microsoft employees fully enjoy personal and professional freedom. One of the reasons for this is that being a programmer requires an individual to exercise its creativeness on a continuous basis, which contradicts the very idea of bureaucratic management.
Microsoft main office provides regional managers with an outline of what needs to be done and they are allowed to implement their own approach in how they do it. Therefore, Microsoft’s managing style can be described as post-bureaucratic. Within the Company, decisions are made on a collegial basis, which is the reason why the Company’s business strategy has never failed to address the needs of consumers. Thus, we can say that there are many objective indications, which point out the fact that Microsoft Corporation practices the “management of meaning”.
In order to conclude this paper, we will need to state the following: Organizational culture is the concept that closely relates to modern socio-political realities. The fact that the era of postmodernism can be characterized by these realities being in the state of constant transition, defines the concept of organizational culture as a whole. Just as Edgar Schein in his book “Organizational Culture and Leadership” suggests: “In this sense, culture is within us as individuals and yet constantly evolving as we join and create new groups that eventually create new cultures. Culture as a concept is thus an abstraction but its behavioural and attitudinal consequences are very concrete indeed” (Schein, p. 120).
In multicultural societies, the application of a rationalized approach to exercise control over employees’ activities, often proves to be counter-productive, as we have illustrated earlier. Therefore, managers must constantly keep in mind that it is only their willingness to embrace new cultural values that will provide them with the insight on the best course of action, when it comes to setting up behavioural policies, within a collective. Managers often do not realize this fact. As practice shows, many of them simply strive to conceal from employees that they are being subjected to one’s rationale, instead of eliminating the rationalistic approach to management altogether.
Bibliography
- Bauman, Z. (1993) “Postmodern Ethics”. New York: Blackwell.
- Bower, B. (2000). “Cultures of Reason”. Science News, v. 157, no. 4, Pp. 56-58.
- Chia, R. (1999) A ‘Rhizomic’ Model of Organizational Change and Transformation: Perspective From a Metaphysics of Change. British Journal of Management. 10/3: 209-227.
- Du Gay, P. (2000). “In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber, Organization, Ethics”. London: Sage.
- Max Weber and the Idea of Bureaucracy. (2007). Science Encyclopedia. Web.
- Smircich, L and Morgan, G. (1982) Leadership: the Management of Meaning. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. 18/3: 257-273.
- Schien, E.(2004) “Organizational Culture and Leadership”. New York: Jossey-Bass.
- Taylor, F. (1911). “The Principles of Scientific Management”. Marxists Internet Archive. Web.
- Weber, M.(1958).”Essays in Sociology”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Weber, M. (2001). “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. University of Virginia. American Studies. Web.
- Willmott, H. (2000) “Strength is Ignorance; Slavery is Freedom: Managing Culture in Modern Organizations”. Cambridge Judge Business School. Web.