Selección de cilindros neumáticos

In recent years the study o f organisations has been dominated by a systems perspective (see, f o r example, Burrell and Korgan, 1979, Silverman, 1970). This approach, as we have already indicated, focusses attention primarily on organisation/environrent interchanges and intercrganisaticnal relationships. This has led to two in te r­ connected criticism s - that by so doing the organisation per se is overvconstructed and assumes an u n ju stifia b le re ific a tic n , while the a c t iv it ie s o f participants as cru cial to the construction o f an

organisation are under-emphasised. (e .g . Giddens, 1965, Eiger, 1975» Hosking and Korley, 1962.) Acceptance o f these criticism s makes i t imperative that attention is directed towards the dynamic aspects o f organisation; to treat organisation as a c tiv ity , and moreover,

a c t iv it y which is h is to ric a lly and contextually located (Burowcy, 1979. Pettigrew, 1985). By this means we seek tc avoid reductionisir. and, consequently, determinism. Ae Yeo (1976*9) remarks, 'abstracting an organisational type from system, place and time can lead to deadeningly misplaced s ocio lo gica l determinism o f the kind pioneered by K ich els'. 3. See also F.E. Bnery and E.L. T ris t, 1969»

26

In addition, by conceptualising organisation as a c tiv ity , i t is possible to avoid being drawn into unrewarding debates concerning the cn tclogical status o f organisations. As 5urrell and Morgan (1979*396) cbserve, 'The notion that one can measure an organisation as an

empirical fa c tic it y is as extreme as the notion that organisations dc net e x is t '. I t is clea r that approaches to organisation which ccunterpose structure and process, the fcnr.al and the informal, or constraint and choice, as dichotomous options can produce lo gica l types whose value is more in redressing a perceived balance in theoretical development than, in themselves, contributing to a h o lis tic analysis o f organisational a c tiv ity . Such an analysis is a more complex endeavour them i t is perhaps comfortable to acknowledge. We shall return tc this point a fte r continuing to b r ie fly outline the main areas o f the organisational lite ra tu r e . (See page 36. )

1. Systems Theory

So fa r we have id e n tifie d the pervasiveness o f hierarchical assumptions in the organisational litera tu re and the curiously unexanined nature o f autonomous or semi-autonomous groups, seen as having a s elf-regu la to ry qu ality which frees high er-level

organisational members fo r the task o f managing 'boundary interchanges'. This approach, as Gculdner (1959) reminds us, can be traced back to Comte's description o f 'n atu ral' and 'spontaneous' social organisation which, via the human relations approach, now finds its expression in cybernetic versions o f systems theory where 'organisational structures are viewed as spontaneously and homeostatically maintained' by means o f

'shared values which are deeply internalised in the members'. (Gculdner, 1959*403) These assumptions o f shared values permit an e n tita tiv e view o f the organisation, 'with a "natural h istory" o f its own' (ib id , 1959*406) , while leaving unexamined the precise operation

27

o f 'dyr.ar.ic homeostasis ' or 'equilibrium ' (see, fc r example, Simon, 1957» Katz and Kahn, 1976). The other eide o f this coin, deriving from Weber's ty p ific a tio n o f the rational-bureaucratic model c f organisations, constructs the organisation as an 'instrument ', 'as a ra tio n a lly conceived means to the re a liza tio n c f expressly announced group goals ' (Gouldner, 1959s404). In this version the fom al rather than the informal aspect o f organisation is dominants nevertheless, we are s t i l l presented with the implication that organisational

structures, however produced, are amenable tc observers' definitions - that is , they have the status o f a socia l fa ct.

This view is made possible i f , following Parsons (1960» i t is assumed that society is characterised by generalised consensus values. On this point we sh a ll argue that the id en tifica tio n o f shared 'cere values ' which inform organising a c tiv ity does not imply that consensus can be assumed. The contrary view is outlined on page 34ff.

Within organisational analysis, consensus assumptions have permitted treatment o f the organisation as a unity with e x p lic it goals and clea r operating procedures. Thus the relationship between structure, function and normative order appears unproblematic, since pertinent values designate the organisational goal and inform a l l aspects c f organisational structure. No an alytical errors are made by holding atten tion at the macro le v e l while investigating contingent

organisational responses to variations in, fc r example, technology (Woodward, 1965, Khandwalla, 1974) or environment (Aldrich, 157?)« the crucial issue fo r them remains goal attainrent as the expression o f organisational e ffectiven ess. Within this model organisations are characterised by equilibrium processes and rcle-deteimir.ec behaviour on the part c f the participants. lieteiminism. is sc profound that even w ithin 'open sccio-technical systems' (e .g . iirery and T ris t, i960) where the problem o f a changed environment is faced, structural

28

elaboration does not modify the organisational goal or 'primary ta s k '. Eiger (1975) has pointed out th at while there is th eoretical variation between system theorists (see Silverman, 1970) as, fo r example, in Gouldner's discussion, 'these differences appear marginal beside the disagreements with th eir c r i t i c s ' (E iger, I975t127), and i t is to these criticism s which we now turn.

2. Criticisms and Alternatives

We shall here look at critiqu es from in teraction ist (and

ettnomethodclogical) and from marxist schools o f thought which draw our attention to the need to incorporate micro and macro levels o f analysis in the understanding o f organisations, but we note that without a means o f connecting these two levels o f analysis the explication o f processes is incomplete. Pursuing Pettigrew's c ritic ism (page 12) o f

organisational research as 'a h is to ric a l, acontextual and aprocessual' we seek a means o f constructing organisational analysis in terms o f connectable v e rtic a l and horizontal components. Using the action critiq u e 'forces us to attend to the processes through which particu lar organisational patterns have been generated and are sustained'

(Benson, 1977*8), and this implies atten tion to h istory, context and day-to-day interaction patterns. We a re concerned to retain the volu n taristic aspects o f organisation w h ile, at the same time, locatin g organisational actors in a contextual framework, and here negotiated order theory is useful. S p e c ific a lly , in this research, we shall be exploring the arena o f negotiation between action and it s symbolic referen ts, which in this case are the values to which we have already referred . In terms o f an alytical stra tegy we note that the adopti on o f d iffe re n t temporal perspectives (by the analyst) provides a means o f

'unpacking' the f u ll complexity o f organisation which is indicated by the c r it ic s o f systems theory.

29

a ) The in teractio n ist critiq u e

The above, e n tita tiv e , view o f organisations is subject to Giorgiou's criticism - namely that when an organisation is considered from this perspective, i t is seen as 'not merely greater than the sum o f it s parts, but so superior that i t is e ffe c t iv e ly divorced from the influence o f it s p arts' (Giorgiou, 1973*77). Thus the corollary to the promotion o f organisational goals and structures is the neglect o f p articip an ts' involvement and actions. Writers within the

in tera ctio n ist trad ition (e .g . Bittner, 1974, Silverman, 1970) in sist that an an alytical approach must take account o f the way in which actors a c tiv e ly and variously in terpret, create and respond to organisational s ettin gs ; i t is an unwarranted reduction to assume 'the d o c ility o f organisational members v is -a -v is administrative instructions' (Eiger, 1975*94). In B ittn er's view this reduction derives from over­ id e n tific a tio n with the e ffic ie n c y p rin cip le 1 which merely selects, id e n tifie s and orders those elements o f a scene o f action that are percieved as related to i t . . . Instead, one is confronted with a rich and ambiguous body o f background inform ation' (ib id , 1974*72-73). The same observation leads Kord (1977) to note an over preoccupation with the id e n tific a tio n o f problems from a managerial perspective as identical with the actu a lity o f organisational l i f e - the 'in teg ra tive assumption - and fo r Kbrman and Vrendenburgh (1984), among others, to argue fo r a

'more comprehensive understanding o f networks o f relationships within m ulti-layered models' (ib id , 1984*235).

Acceptance o f these criticism s demands certain modifications to the dominant mode o f research in organisations. As we have already noted the in teraction ist perspective is important in drawing attention to the existence o f individual agendas within organisational settings (Perrow, 1978) and, consequently to the fact that members participate in an a ctive and variable manner (Strauss, 1978), a point which is obscured when role-determined behaviour is treated unproblematically.

50

b) The marxist critiq u e

This urge to attend to micro le ve ls o f analysis is balanced by arguments, frequently from a marxist perspective, which propose that

'explanations o f organisational phenomena cannot be sought within the boundaries o f the organisation' (Benson, 1977:11). In this view (see, f o r example, Salaman, 1978, Burowoy, 1979, Heydebrand, 1977)

organisations are, in part at lea st, lo c i fo r the expression o f class in terests and r e fle c t within them the in equalities o f power which are the defining characteristics o f c a p ita lis t society. Thus, in general terms, the plea from this quarter (Salaman, 1979:519) is fo r a

sociology o f organisations which 'takes as it s topic to be investigated exactly that which is assumed and glossed over by contemporary

organisational analysis: the relationship between internal

organisational structures, processes and ideologies and the society in which these e x is t '. The importance o f this perspective for

organisational analysis is that i t o ffe rs a means o f incorporating context and h istory and, as such, is counterposed to e ffo rts 'aimed at a general theory o f organisational behaviour, generalisable across time and place' (EBvies, 1981*6). We are also provided with a means o f connecting micro and macro le vels o f analysis but as Pettigrew (1985) observes, the simple determinism o f the presentation reduced its appeal: 'Salaman (1979) o ffe rs no th eoretical language or lo g ic a l argument o f why and how s o c ie ta l and intraorganisational power and p o lit ic a l processes are in te rre la te d .' (Pettigrew, 1985*30) I t is o n ly in instances where attempts have been made to confront the 'rich and ambiguous body o f background information' through ethnographic studies (e .g . W illis , 1977* Beynon, 1975) that we see moves to include process, as w ell as context and h istory, as in trin s ic to the analysis.

At this point a short digression is in order. Marxist

approaches to organisational analysis are posed in terms o f d ifferen t in te re s t groups (c la s se s) under capitalism, which are understood in

relation to th e ir d ifferen tia l access to resources and the iraintenance o f these d iffe r e n tia ls . To the extent to which the tenrs o f the discussion are wholly located within the prcbleratic o f c a p ita lis t production and reproduction, the relevance to organisational settings, such as Women's Centres, which are not s p e c ific a lly o f this type, must be questioned. The relationships between marxism and feminism,

between class and patriarchy are complex, and have been debated in terms o f both incorporation and separation (Sargent, 1961). The view is taken here th at, while the constraints and structural processes of c a p ita lis t production cannot be claimed to be to ta lly absent, i t is reasonable to claim that they intrude le ss d irectly and immediately than is the case fo r the majority o f settin gs where organisational behaviour is studied. This observation provides one ju s tific a tio n fo r re jec tin g an in te re st base in favour o f a value base fo r a f f ilia t io n , althou^i we must also note that i t is r e la t iv e ly unusual fo r this distinction tc receive much attention in the organisational lite ra tu re. Ranson, Hinings and Greenwood (1980), f o r example,

discuss 'values and in terests' as an undifferentiated bundle.

Westerlund and Sjflstrand (1979) are exceptional in that they consider i t important to d ifferen tia te in this respect, particularly when seeking descriptions o f organisational processes.

In this research, the emphasis on values as the primary basis far a f f ilia t io n is suggested by the above observations, and receives reinforcement from, an examination o f the empirical data. Class differences between participants may be p art o f the dynamics o f organisation within Women's Centres, but i t w ill be shown that,

essen tially, i t is differences in such factors as fam iliarity with the women's movement and in the nature or extent c f s k ills or knowledge held by participants which require negotiation in the process o f creating non-hlerarchical organisation. These and similar factors may

3?

be understood as e ffec ts o f class differen ces; they nay alec have seme other basis. I t is not considered that social organisation in the settin gs we are interested in occurs primarily with reference to classes or in terests.

c ) Hie action critiq u e and negotiated order theory

A number o f writers (e .g . Benson, 1977, Giddens, 1°76, lerrcw, 197?) have po inted tc the convergence o f marxism anc’ ethnomet'r,ode logy- in th e ir (action ) critiq u e o f conventional approaches as depicting a singular organisational r e a lit y . As 3enson describes i t :

Hie action critiq u e forces us to attend to the processes through which particu lar organisational patterns have been generated and are sustained. Explanations based s o le ly in the morphology o f a produced, taken-fer- granted re a lity are no longer acceptable. Hiis fc rces attention tc h istory, to the sequence c f events and contexts through which the present arrangements have been manufactured. I t also directs atten tion to the ongoing, day-to-day interactions through which a produced r e a lity is sustained.

(1977:8) This a ltern a tive approach makes two demands on organisational analysis. F irs t, that Inquiry must be wider than the narrow confines o f

conventionally understood organisational boundaries, and second, that 'stru ctu re' must be reccneeptualised to include it s dynamic and d ia le c tic aspects.

On the f ir s t point we nay return to Salaman's plea tc lccate organisation theory in it s societal context. Cper. systems theory

(e .g . Katz and Kahn, 197?) produced simple models o f input and output in an attempt to indicate the permeable nature o f organisational boundaries, but this and sim ilar attempts have been roundly c ritic is e d by at least one author. Pettigrew (1999 *3^) considers that 'the in ert, action less brand c f functionalism in open systems theory, and the equally mechanical attempts tc codify and measure intern-organisational relationships led nowhere'. Even the more developed and complex work o f Aldrich (1979) and P fe ffe r and Salancik (1?76) is subject tc the

c ritic ism , in Aldrich 's case, o f ecological determinism and, in the case o f P fe ffe r and Salancik, o f conceptualising the environment as la rg e ly composed o f other organisations. Taking up the 's o c io lo g ic a l' critic ism , Lammers (1979) argues for in terest to be taken in the

'cu ltural aspects and cultural determinants o f organisational behaviour' (ib id , 1979*99) but, leaving aside fo r the moment the question o f the v i a b i l it y o f 'cu ltu re' as a concept, we may note that Lammers'

reluctance to abandon the aim o f building a general - and hence, unlccated - theory o f organisations prejudices his own espousal o f his i n i t i a l prescription. The dilemma here is that, while i t can be argued that conventional organisation theory is too p a rtia l and too ready to accept analytical closure in it s debates to be at present in a p osition to construct a general theory, the altern a tive can be to espouse a complexity which threatens to become 'unresearchable'. The suggestions fo r a way out o f this impasse are lim ited. Sbr example Heydebrand's (1977) formulation o f organisations as an 'instrument o f class s tru g g le ', which is intended to improve on the treatment o f organisations as 'a c to rs ', is subject to the criticism o f determinism we have already noted, and further, this determinism leads

some marxist writers (e .g . Clegg and Dunkerley, 1977) to question the ontological

assumption o f the organisation as a separate r e a lity . I t is argued