An organization is composed of ideal people, objectives, process, and strategies that works together to earn the best position in the competition. It is not only on the issue of competency and innovation that a firm places the entire organization under some changes and transformation. More of the organization’s objective is based on the internal affairs such as further training and development of the workforce, transfer of position, and technological support. Meanwhile, other organizations act and turn for organizational transformation because of the economic trends and their growth. This changes or transformation happens because the propellers believe that an effective organization cannot be a successful if all of the people working under their name did not find their own identity or did not have their own choice of career goal. In addition, they also believe that the people and system can work together and be one.
However, even if the organization was fueled by their goals, there are many problems that they have to endure. One of which is that the anticipation of the quick result. Once the change has been implemented, every people and the system should be aligned in the certain goal. Much of the organizations fail to meet the changes and the positive outcomes because of the existence of organizational phenomena. Organizations recognized the existence of the term and managed to establish a counter-action against its impact in the organization. Still, there are many proposed project and research studies that enables the company to be well guided toward their goal.
The organizational phenomena can be seen in the processes, routine, and organizational actions. There is a slow change on organizational change and it should be first be subjected to the careful planning to avoid failure. The idea of failure can destroy the competency of the organization and their adoption of organizational change as a strategy (Sastry, 1997). Managing the change should be under the surveillance because the change is too rapid, and it is truly equally damaging. When the organization is too responsive for the change and allows the phase to happen several times, there is a more chance in failure of the business performance and proficiency, as well as the efficiency, of the people.
The knowledge in organizational phenomena such as organizational culture, organizational change, power, etc. is part of the perspective of projecting the reality of human experience and interaction. The process and actions of both organizational and social actors interacted in concrete. In the viewpoints of the organizational forms and social reality such as the change in organizational culture centered a raising problem in management and business education (Mendy, 2007).
Understanding the phenomena can happen through learning the perspectives, such as the culture. Many researches proved the significant impact of culture on many parts of organizational life and still affecting the changes, processes, and applied strategies of the organization. In exploration of the organizational concept that regards on the culture and change, it is suggested that every manager, rather an interested individual should view the analysis in a multiple perspective that can help understand and be better adopted in the complexity of the organizational phenomena (Kezar and Eckel, 2002).
The multiple perspectives are a powerful tool in providing the most acceptable interpretation and deep understanding of the culture. There is a cultural analysis that establishes a kind of framework that helps many organizational researchers and observers a familiar framework that is ready to identify. The level of analysis offers a multiple-lens perspective for better understanding of the complex organizational phenomena.
The complexity of the organizational phenomena involves the effectiveness and accuracy of the given measurement which is involved in the research issues. The managers that are expected to control the changes and organizational transformations affect their way of thinking and are recognized on their behaviors. The anticipation of the managers to explore the use of the time and events can be the first stage in-progress. Certainly, the managers will gather all the information they needed and then, confirm it as they compare the collected information together with the past events. In the next phase of the process is searching for the symbolic meaning and the last is assessing the outcomes of events as they are being interpreted. In this way, analyzing the organizational phenomena is the key for concise understanding.
Multiple Perspectives on Organizational Phenomena
Because of the multiplicity and complexity of issues in the organization, many researchers and analysts suggested the utilization of the multiple perspectives in the aim of understanding the organizational phenomena. Although at some point, the idea of multiple perspectives is plagued with various problems. Like for example, the perspectives are built with variety of assumptions, concepts and perspectives can cause competency or conflict on each other. The multiple perspectives may provide the diverse possibilities in constructing the world of your own and in return, understand the world of others (Hatch, 1997).
The modern perspective or modernist interpretation is based on the belief that there is an existing objective, such as physical reality which is under the question. The popular representation and best example in this criterion is whether there is an elephant or an organization, which is most parable perspective among the three (Hatch, 1997). This kind of interpretation can blind men therefore; it should be supported with propositions. The modern period of the organizational theory should base on the scientific method and characterized by linear and hierarchical organizations within the industry.
It relies on the idea of the discourse. The use of language plays an important in asserting, positioning, or assessing the information of the other involved matters in the organization. It took the variety of representations such as the physical, social, and psychological, since language is the most foundational elements of the topic. The idea of words is also based on the revolving ideas within an organization and being described as the symbolic media which enables to represent, interpret and theorize (Ward and Winstanley, 2003). The language is very useful in any discourse analysis which addresses different problems. In contrary, language is another factor that being caused of the problems. The differences in the linguistic systems and the applied language in the workplace might cause stress especially on the newly hired employees. This idea can promote the mystery of alienation between the management and the employee or in the relationship of an employee to another employee. In case of the communication, the situation of the alienation should be first recognized before making any actions (Mendy, 2007). The most basic sample is the project team, it is hard to disseminate a team when the people have communication problem. As an observer, the main solution is to provide communication strategies that can be applied in the improvement of the people.
In the view of the complex world of the organization, the phenomena are best described through the use of assertion. Like the symbolic interpretative approach, the complexity discourse. Many organizational leaders, business analysts, students and researchers regarded the complexity in a system that accepts a certain idea as a whole. This can promote the benefit from the various complex research programs (Van Uden, Richardson, and Cilliers, 2001). The complexity of the organization is in under the respect of the postmodern organization theory that acknowledges the importance of languages and history.
The interpretation of the organizational phenomena is already formulated in the minds of the managers. The interpretation of the organizational events and process is already recognized in the past literature. When it happens to translate the organizational phenomena, the managerial control is also represented. However, there is a limited set of data items in organizational phenomena (Geisler, 1999).
The complexity in the organizational phenomena is categorized in five illustrative groups use of power in an organization is under the administrative control that revolves in corporate issues and change process. The industry is best subject in reengineering and reconstruction. Part of the category is the alienation which happens when there is an employee transfer or any other related instances. The organization in the workplace, motivation of the workforce and the performance review analysis are the only few components of alienation. Another idea is the growth and competency status of the business. It is the idea of reorganizing, business innovation and strategies to survive. Moreover, the competitive advantage of the business that can be used in surviving in the industry and efficiency of the business performance. And the last category is under the issue of leadership. If the organization has followers, there should be also a leader. A leader is the basic component of an ideal organization that can endure rough changes in the industry such as economic downturn and yet, can still create a tough decision to lead his people toward their goal.
The process formulation can start in the projection and measuring the principle that can guide an individual to a straight path of decision. It represents a method in constructing the reality. Next is to manage the pieces of information gathered. It is like a puzzle that appears in the corporate context and values. A person or a manager should connect the pieces where there is a clear picture that represents the organizational phenomenon. After all the things have been connected with each other, the integration of the content should be placed under the analysis. Together with the interaction of the concerned groups, manager or business leaders can establish a valuable and sensible decision where they can carry on the final stage which is the action. The action contains the most applicable solution/s that can have the strength to potentially secure the position of the business in the reality.
The modern is the rational thinking, symbolic-interpretative is the natural, and the post-modern perspective is considered as the open-system. Modern perspective is base on the proposition while the symbolic and post-modern asserts the knowledge by testing the information against the reality because the real world is composed of the real experiences, ideas, and related business theories. The definition of the reality is viewed many perspective as if it can be conflicting, complementing, or contradicting And as a favorable statement for the three perspectives, there is no suggestion on picking the best and suitable view for the reason that the world adopts no universal standard for the measurement.
The multiple perspectives can be combined to create a most applicable action on the present situation of the organization. Many managers used their experience in adopting the changes or the organizational phenomena without knowing that they already setting the strategy in viewing the organization.
Geisler, E., 1999. Organizational Change Phenomena, Managerial Cognition, and Archival Measure: Re-conceptualization and New Empirical Evidence. [Online] Available at: http://www.stuart.iit.edu/shared/shared_stuartfaculty/whitepapers/geisler_organizational.pdf. [Accessed 05 Jan 2010].
Hatch, M., 1997. Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford University Press. [Online] Available at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0198774907/ref=sib_rdr_dp. [Accessed 05 Jan 2010].
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P., 2002. The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education. Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73, No. 4. [Online] Available at: http://www.pkal.org/documents/Kezar Organization Culture and Change.pdf. [Accessed 05 Jan 2010].
Mendy, J., 2007. Research Dilemmas in Management and Business Studies. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.49-60. [Online] Available at: http://www.ejbrm.com/vol5/v5-i2/Mendy.pdf. [Accessed 05 Jan 2010].
Sastry, M., 1997. Problems and Paradoxes in a Model of Punctuated Organizational Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2. [Online] Available at: www.questia.com. [Accessed 05 Jan 2010].
Van Uden, J., Richardson, K., & Cilliers, P., 2001. Postmodernism Revisited? Complexity and the Study of Organizations. Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, Vol.1, no. 3. p.53. [Online] Available at: http://www.peaceaware.com/tamara/issues/volume_1/issue_1_3/PDF%20articles/Van%20Uden_Postmodernism_FT.pdf. [Accessed 05 Jan 2010].
Ward, J., & Winstanley, D., 2003. Coming Out: Recognition and Renegotiation of Identity in Organizations, Identity: Constructed, Consumed and Politicized. Imperial Business School. [Online] Available at: http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/2003/proceedings/identity/ward.pdf. [Accessed 05 Jan 2010].