Leadership Towards Organizational Democracy

Question: Analyse and assess the influence of leadership on an organisation's culture . Critically evaluate the major attributes of effective leadership. Answer: Introduction Interpretation of organizations is mostly based on some theory or hypothesis to describe the reality. Many notions about organizations and management are always based on accepted beliefs and assumptions. It goes without saying that organizations are a complex entity which can be perceived in various perspectives. People who are rigid comprehend organizations regarding one of the metaphors (Tryggestad 2012). On the other hand, people who are flexible and suspend their judgmental mindset can see several perspectives rather than only a particular situation for dealing with organizations and the issues. The following analysis deals with how the principle of Morgan may be applicable in different organizational perspectives which are seemingly complex. The management of the organization should take stock of the increasingly emerging and complicated scheme of affairs. It is imperative that they wield Gareth Morgans Metaphors of Organization observations and recommendations and deal with the situations that exist in the organization. Discussion and Analysis Morgans organizational perspectives At the outset, it is important to learn that the central proposition of Images of Organization concerns all the theories and management is based on unspoken metaphors and the same exerts a paradoxical role. Morgan promulgated various organizational perspectives which are mentioned as follows. The machine view controls modern management thought process and is emblematic of bureaucracies (Avril and Zumello 2013). On the other hand, the organizational strategy or standpoint emphasizes and explores adaptation, growth, and environmental relationship. Organizations are deemed as information processors which have the capacity to learn. Organizations are also construed as cultures which are based on norms, beliefs, values and others. However, some organizations can be taken as psychic prisons wherein resources are trapped by their mindsets. Organizations are subject to change and can act as instruments of domination exerting emphasis over-exploitation thereby imposition of someones will on o thers. It is interesting to see how the doctrines of Gareth Morgan may be related and applied in the real-time organization parlance (Hadida et al. 2015). Machine organization metaphor In the modern world, machine dominates the business operations. The factual reality is people who are machine thinking in nature are expected to operate like a machine, for instance, clockwork by resorting to certain procedures while the rest as per certain rules which again work in a mechanical way. Firms have to adapt to the technology they made use of post-Industrial Revolution when resources lost their autonomy in work to assume specialists in controlling machines (Scott-Brown 2016). In the organization, machine managers are trained that will enable them to plan for and control the firm. The resources are taught to divide the entire firm into various functional departments with particular jobs assigned to them. Here, commands are circulated maintaining the hierarchy which involves the whole organization to have a uniform effect. As per the experts classical management theory, organizations should be rational and can be optimized to realize the optimal potential. In the organizati on, the resources would work well, given the task is simple in keeping with a stable environment. However, the reverse side of the case is if the organization fails to adapt to the changes, it may have to face unwanted repercussions which would lead to dehumanizing. Organismic organization metaphor The firm is supposed to function like existing organisms. The employees here have various complex needs that require being fulfilled so that the establishment could work properly. Now, various experts identify social needs in the workplace that exerts motivation to the work. In the selected company, the management has made special emphasis towards making work more significant and inspiring people to be involved in their assigned role. The organization is open to the changes and therefore should be well versed to respond to the ever-changing facets of the business environment. The firm practices organismic view which emphasizes on relations between organizations and environment. The company is currently focusing on survival strategy. The firm is innovative in nature and has more design choices by laying stress on inter-organizational relations. However, one such limitation in this regard is sometimes the firm becomes too mechanistic in its approach and hence fails to function properly due to lack of cooperation In its ranks and the metaphor can easily turn out to be a mere ideology (Morgan 2016). Self-organising metaphor When the things change, its imperative that the resources should be good enough to question that what they are doing is perfect and may be likened to the brain which is construed as the best information processor. As per the scholars, organizations cannot be wholly rational since they are devoid of access to a range of information (Oswick and Marshak 2012). Thus they can consider paltry alternatives while making decisions. Our concerned organization is no exception in this regard. It has settled for a restricted rationality which is based on limited information. Here, jobs and various functional departments create structures of interpretation along with decision-making which in turn makes the job of the managers relatively easy and simplified. On the other hand, the question remains whether companies like a brain which can learn. Morgan formulates that the key to brains functioning lies in its connectivity which encompasses various functions being performed by the same structure. Sim ilarly, the organization in question should seek to self-organize which would permit the unit to act like a brain. Here, redundancy may be created by the addition of specialized parts to the system which in corporate jargon refers to multitasking (Hatch and Cunliffe 2013). Organizations as Cultures Organizations are deemed as socially constructed entities. In industrial nations, society is made up of organizations that influence the lives of individuals along with particular beliefs, rituals, and rules. The strength of the cultural model is observed in the organization in this regard. This imparts valuable insight the nature and significance of relation which exists between the organization and the environment it operates in. This helps in the understanding of organizational change. However, the loophole in this regard could be that the cultural model may give rise to ideological control in the wrong hands of the firm (Sukowski and Zawadzki 2015). Organizational Culture Experts have pointed out three dimensions to an organizational culture which is termed as artifacts which are somewhat similar to Hofstedes cultural aspects, beliefs, and espoused values. However, others consider organizational culture as a product of a complex group of the learning process that puts together behavioral patterns and offers structural stability to various groups at a deeper level through shared basic assumptions (Loomis 2015). The said organization aims to engage into an adaptation drive which is a coping strategy that maintains a relationship to its environment. To achieve the business goals the resources must be in agreement about the way of achieving the companys mission. Managers should agree about how to allocate tasks and roles and delegate functions to appropriate resources. In other words, people of the organization must settle how the organization would initiate corrective measures if they learn that their organizational goals and objectives are not complied with. The remedial strategies disclose assumptions regarding the identity and mission which are related to the assumptions concerning the firms internal operations and functioning (rtenblad et al. 2016). Psychic Prisons This principle comes with a set of perspectives that facilitate to investigate into unconscious processes which reveal that the understanding of organization is too rational and draws attention to ethics which further creates barriers to change and innovation. Organizations nowadays are consciously created and sustained, and people are holed up by being imprisoned by mind gaps. Various organizations have failed because they were incapable of going beyond the policies that had a considerable contribution to making them successful at the beginning. The selected firm should make sure that it controls exploitation, domination and puts emphasis on cognitive processes (Mel and Cantn 2014). Transformative organizations The business environment is impermanent and transient in nature. To decipher the organization, one needs to have an exhaustive understanding of basic force that generates and sustain the firm. The company in consideration looks to adopt conventional approaches which imply that change is instigated by the environment of the organization. The factual reality is that this conjecture offers an insight over the nature and sources of change which may help the management to find ways of managing the change successfully (Martnez-vila and Beak 2016). Organizations acting as instruments of control It goes without saying that corporate practices put forth profit before human welfare and the condition are pitiable in not so affluent economies. The factual reality is that Industrial Revolution changed the paradigm of labor concept and changed labor into a commodity. Here, people are governed by the process of stringent administrative rules in the quest for efficiency. The concerned firm should be wary of the charismatic model which entails over unstable administration along with nepotism, and bureaucracy in legal administration (Jermier and Forbes 2016). Recommendation and Conclusion The above holistic explanation advocates Gareth Morgans theory of organizational metaphors. It means facilitating an individual or group to identify the unconscious metaphors that guide the worldview and directs the corporate decisions. It should be made sure that to facilitate without suggesting or imposing the organization's metaphor needs skilled management and adept practices. The entire process may be taken a notch higher by facilitating a resource or a body to symbolically self-model the manner the system works. Thus, in fine, it may be said that rather than trying to make change happen, new learning occurs, problems get solved and creativity is stimulated organically, as a by-product of the self-modeling process. References Avril, E. and Zumello, C., 2013. Introduction: Towards Organizational Democracy? Convergence and Divergence in Models of Economic and Political Governance. In New Technology, Organizational Change and Governance (pp. 1-20). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Hadida, A.L., Tarvainen, W. and Rose, J., 2015. Organizational improvisation: a consolidating review and framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), pp.437-459. Hatch, M.J. and Cunliffe, A.L., 2013. Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press. Jermier, J.M. and Forbes, L.C., 2016. Metaphors, organizations and water: Generating new images for environmental sustainability. human relations, 69(4), pp.1001-1027. Loomis, B., 2015. Beyond Metaphor: Populations and Groups, Interests, and Lobbyists. In The Organization Ecology of Interest Communities (pp. 249-261). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Martnez-vila, D. and Beak, J., 2016. Methods, Theoretical Frameworks and Hope for Knowledge Organization. Knowledge Organization, 43(5). Mel, D. and Cantn, C.G., 2014. The Idea of the Human Person in Management and Organizational Theories. In Human Foundations of Management (pp. 30-49). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Morgan, G., 2016. Commentary: Beyond Morgans eight metaphors. Human Relations, 69(4), pp.1029-1042. rtenblad, A., Putnam, L.L. and Trehan, K., 2016. Beyond Morgans eight metaphors: Adding to and developing organization theory. Human Relations, 69(4), pp.875-889. Oswick, C. and Marshak, R.J., 2012. Images of organization development. The Routledge companion to organizational change, p.104. Scott-Brown, S., 2016. Re-Reading Raphael Samuel: Politics, Personality and Performance. Life Writing, pp.1-18. Sukowski,  . and Zawadzki, M., 2015. Critical Discourse in Contemporary Management Science. Folia Philosophica, (34), pp.199-230. Tryggestad, K., 2012. Perspectives on Projects. Construction Management and Economics, 30(5), pp.416-420.