Explain how a multiple perspective approach assists us in achieving a more comprehensive understanding of complex organizational phenomena
We help with your
Organization success is only effectively feasible to the needs of the organization of perspectives are executed and fully adopted for awareness of performance that strikes in a positive motion and with award winning results and from certain tenets there exists multiple perspectives ideally motivated in the organizations and these involves modern, interpretive and post modern organizational based perspectives. The process of the three will be accountable to the understanding of complex organization phenomena that matter to each and every key player in the organization for example, how Ocean Park team decides on activities that deal with imperative decisions will fit into the culture wherein the Hong Kong people are adopting into because of simple and unified organization perspectives despite diverse assumptions of such type. There is about the social world and the ontological nature of reality that goes well with learning and experience. There will be greater knowledge on the perspectives as well as certain comparison and contrast of views into organizations as discussed further in the next pages.
Thus, multiple perspectives in organizations today mean a lot of functional cues that are successfully manifested by the organization, McDonalds is effective on customer service and product quality which fits into modernism and will work well for post modern applications of future plans, activities and events of the organization that respects the value and stance of rational thinking and the process stature that serve functional grounds for multiple perspective adaptation. There can be about oorganizational decisions that include social and economic concerns, as organizations and decision support systems must embrace procedures that can deal with perspectives formation that may go ahead of technical measure as well as orientation as being designed to deal with organization related situations.
There is essence and value on
modern principles towards organization success and performance, for example
leading to theory and practice of public relationships that are based on
modernist understanding of organization that privileged management perspectives
and strategic focus, there has been possibility of modernism as alternative
theoretical approach to community relations. In relation to modern concepts, the
perspective rejects manager as rational being who has the ability to determine
organizational outcomes through strategies. Thus, modernist public relations are
being examined as hegemonic practice that interpret practitioners into system to
legitimize perspectives and actions of corporate managers as objective
knowledge, particularly through discursive practices in organizational media (
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article. (((Holtzhausen, 2002, Pages 251-264).
Another, modern based theory of the Disney as storytelling organization in which an active-reactive interplay of modern also postmodern discourse do happen. There can be modern analysis of the multiple discourse revealing marginalized voices as through which Disney team learns to accept changes in organization phenomena, in an adjustable manner with implications for modern, interpretive as well as postmodern theory and future research study.
Lamertz, Martens, Heugens and Pursey (2003, pp. 82-93) asserted that those organizations adopting symbolic interpretive/interactionist perspective recognizes that certain culture issues should be interpreted by means of social construction placing institutional order that structures purposeful exchanges between actors of the organization from the condition, interpretive symbols helps resemble sense-giving battle in which actors seek to restore decisive order by imposing unique solution as well as preferences on certain situation, acknowledge interpretive essence of socially constructed reality that exist in the minds of interpretivists managers if in business grounds. The nature of symbolic interpretivism that management act toward things on the basis of the meaning that the thing have for the team, derived from social interaction that one has with one’s fellows.
An organization that engages in social interaction with itself by making indications to itself and responding to these indications, process of interpretation out of which action arises. The world of reality exists only as it is interpreted and comprehended by the individual. Exists only in human experience. Large societal organizations as arrangements of people who are interlinked in their respective actions. Seeks explanation in the way in which participants define, interpret and meet situations at their respective points. One concrete example of symbolic interpretive view is found in religious manner, for instance Bartunek (1984, pp. 355-372) have reported a study of religious order whose shared interpretive scheme, as understanding of mission, were being changed and underwent revision in structure. There are interpretive schemes undergo fundamental change and ways linked to restructuring.
The process of change in interpretive symbols is reciprocal relationship to change in structure as being mediated by actions of organizational members and the reactions to change such as the way religious meetings is interpreted by organizational members affects the type of phenomena that take place from within, as organization's leadership respond to alternate interpretive symbols/schemes in understanding complexities that will occur.
Smircich and Stubbart (1985, pp. 724-736) noted that, there can be symbolic encounter when organizations adapt to diverse environments as well as rethinking opportunities and considering role of strategic managers to be interpretive in nature and meaning. Another account to the perspective is implied by Schein's (1985 cited in Hatch 1993, pp. 657-693) model of organization culture as assumptions, appreciation of organizational culture as symbols and process as there are ideas drawn from symbolic-interpretive perspective such as in called cultural dynamics, articulating realization, symbolization as well as interpretation and provide framework of organization culture.
The basis for sophisticated understanding of organization interpretive for developing structurational concepts viewed as duality of communicative actions linked by modality of interpretive symbolism for organizational phenomena and its analysis (Heracleous and Hendry (2000, pp. 1251-1286). Indeed, there has been intersection of culture and organization theory evident in organizational symbolism, as the work is based on assumptions about the nature of culture cues and organization, evaluating power and limitations of culture must be conducted within assumptive context as culture takes organization analysis in several different and promising directions.
Post modernism is another salient picture that connects modernism and interpretive views wherein postmodernists stress importance of symbolic, cultural elements of the world and what organizations see or believe depends of social situation and its location, open one’s conception of organization, vague and permeated its boundaries as rationales become multiple interests and purposes are differentiated and contextualized for example, Parker (1992, pp. 1-17) indicated that postmodernism is entering organization studies as such contributions are critically reviewed and then subjected to sympathetic scrutiny of distinction between modern and postmodern epistemology as explored in terms of its conse quences for knowing the organizations so as to explain rising popularity of the 'post' within organizational modernism stature.
Several proponents have noted relevance of modernist-post modernist debate to organizational analysis (Cooper and Burrell 1988, Burrell 1988) and examine work of Jacques Derrida viewed as contribution to the analysis of process in social systems. Since organizations are products of labour, essential function is to explain and justify the structures they represent, as being concerned with maintaining consistency and stability of organized world rather than critical understanding such as by detailed deconstruction of approaches of bureaucracy in organization, underlying Foucault's concept of knowledge and power and development of areas of organization knowledge in action (Cooper 1989, pp. 479-502).
Furthermore, Chia (1995 pp. 579-604) recognized terms 'modem' and 'postmodern' have become common currency in intel lectual debates within organization, postmodern is interpreted as perspective/paradigm of structural/culture based thought. Thus, have argued that what distinguished postmodern from the modem is the style of thinking, uncritical use of common organization terms such as environment as well as structure and culture. There can be existence of social entit ies and attributes within modernist problematic, modernist thought style relies on strong' ontology of being which privileges thinking in terms of discrete phenomenal states and sequential events.
In contrast, postmodern privileged weak ontology of becoming which emphasize transient, ephemeral and emergent reality and that, reality is deemed in flux and transformation can be in static sense. There debates about modernism and postmodernism which do not address ontological distinction miss critical insights which postmodernism brings to the study of organization. Adopting postmodern mode of thinking implies radical consequences for rethinking organization studies. Instead of the traditional emphasis on organizations, organizational forms and organizational attributes, what is accentuated is the importance of examining local assemblages of 'organizing' which collectively make up social reality.
For comparison, postmodern style of thought brings with it different set of onto logical commitments, intellectual priorities and theoretical preoccupations to bear the organization (Chia, 1995 pp. 579-604). The symbolic interpretive can be at the centre of the perspective phenomena as being recognized by conceptual positions of modernism and postmodernism for example, how HK hotels adopt to post modern tenets can also be the same with symbolism used by the organization such as the reality of being a five star hotel denotes interpretive view with a touch of both modern and post modern stats of such information and communication. Aside, modernism rests on transcendent yet anthropocentric criteria such as progress and reason like of Habermas (Cooper and Burrell 1988 pp. 91-112).
Also in contrast, postmodern analyzes social life in paradox and indeterminacy, rejecting organization agent as centre of rational control and understanding. Therefore, in modernist model, organization is viewed as social tool and extension of human rationality. In symbolic interpretive there can be usage of imperative tools from both modern and post modern domains and have illustrative process on the side of reality. Meanwhile, in postmodern view, organization is less expression of planned thought and calculative action and defensive reaction to forces intrinsic to social body which may threaten stability of organized life (Cooper and Burrell 1988 pp. 91-112). Indeed, there were examinations of certain assumptions for example of modernist organization science, there can be empirical knowledge and language as representation and positioned for symbolism as well as post modern turn in culture of organization as well as discipline.
From certain post modern standpoint, organizations then moved to replace empirical knowledge with social construction, language as representation with language as action, the emphasis on reconstructing and enriching aims and methods of critical reflection and action within organizations (Gergen and Thatchenkery 2004 pp. 228-249). Another example that places comprehensive understanding of phenomena could be, post-modern currents in food security, shifts in thinking about food security from the global, national and the individual as being consistent with post-modern thinking, draws on debate to recommend food security policy in favour of recognizing diversity which contributes to self-determination and state.
Thus, for epistemology that combine skepticism toward met narrative with commitment to rigorous standards of enquiry in pursuit of radical challenges to accepted knowledge, provoke conversation concerning potential of postmodernism for revolutionizing organizational research (Kilduff and Mehra, 1997 pp. 453-481). Argued on developed and sustained consideration of problematic of interpretation and of representation in organizational analysis, focusing understanding of significant problems within particular arena of activity, organizational symbolism, there articulates issues that are fundamental to theory and practice of organization (Jeffcutt, 1994 pp. 241-274). The proper way to remain in organized phenomena of multiple perspectives in organizations is through the manipulation of thought through language.
Bartunek J (1984) Changing Interpretive Schemes and Organizational Restructuring: The Example of a Religious Order. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 355-372 Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University
Burrell G (1988) Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis 2: The Contribution of Michel Foucault. Organization Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, 221-235
Chia R ((1995) From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. Organization Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4, 579-604
Cooper R (1989) Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis 3: The Contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, 479-502
Cooper R and Burrell G (1988) Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction. Organization Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, 91-112
Gergen KJ and Thatchenkery TJ (2004) Organization Science as Social Construction Postmodern Potentials. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 40, No. 2, 228-249
Hatch MJ (1993) The Dynamics of Organizational Culture. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 657-693 Academy of Management
Heracleous L and Hendry J
(2000) Discourse and the study of organization: Toward a structurational
perspective. Human Relations, Vol. 53, No. 10, 1251-1286
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this articHoltzhausen DR (2002) Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations. Public Relations Review, Volume 28, Issue 3, August 2002, Pages 251-264 Elsevier Science Inc.
Jeffcutt P (1994) From Interpretation to Representation in Organizational Analysis: Postmodernism, Ethnography and Organizational Symbolism. Organization Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, 241-274
Kilduff M and Mehra A (1997) Postmodernism and Organizational Research. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 453-481. Academy of Management
Lamertz K Martens ML Heugens and Pursey PM (2003) Issue Evolution: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. Corporate Reputation Review, Volume 6, Number 1, 1 April 2003, pp. 82-93(12) Palgrave Macmillan
Maxwell S (1996) Food security: a post-modern perspective Food Volume, May 1996, pp. 155-170
Parker M (1992) Post-Modern Organizations or Postmodern Organization Theory? Organization Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, 001-17
Smircich L and
Stubbart C (1985) Strategic Management in an Enacted World. The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 724-736
Academy of Management
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.