1. MGMT 861 Class 4 (OT Perspectives and the Legacy of Karl Marx in OT)

2. COMBINED PERSPECTIVES Chapter 5 discusses the fact that over time the rational and natural views have combined with the open systems approach to OT and lead to combined perspectives Lawrence & Lorsch’s Contingency Model – there is no one best way to organize, depends on the organizational form and the environment. Thompson’s Levels Model – organizations operate at three levels: technical, managerial, and institutional. The rational, natural, and opens systems approaches work best within each, respectively.

3. COMBINED PERSPECTIVES Scott’s Layered Model – Argues that the rational and natural systems models shared the fact that they assumed that organizations operated under closed systems assumptions. Open systems models displaced those assumptions. Scott and Davis then talk about the different models that have emerged over time: - Closed-Rational and Natural-System Models - Open-Rational and Natural-System Models: New Levels (social psychological, structural, ecological Over time, organizational studies have expanded the levels of analysis.

4. COMBINED PERSPECTIVES Organizational sets – there is a focal organization and the set looks at all of the dyadic relationships that exist. Organizational populations – an aggregate group of similar organizations exhibiting a similar form. Organizational fields – aggregate group of organizations that make up a segment of institutional life (sort of a population of organizational sets). Chapter closes out with Ecological Level Theories (contingency theory, transaction cost theory, resource dependency theory, knowledge based theories)

5. A condition of being disassociated from society. Ruled by the impersonal forces of the market and the inhuman decisions of bureaucracies. People create the world through their labors but then become constrained by the very things they have created. No sense of communal action or satisfaction No ownership over their own lives or their products. MARX’s DISCUSSION OF ALIENATION (LAST WEEK)

6. Separating workers from one another, from their activity, and from their products. To be alienated is to be separated from one's own essence or nature. The experience of 'alienation' involves a sense of a lack of self-worth and an absence of meaning in one's life. MARX’s DISCUSSION OF ALIENATION (LAST WEEK)

7. To give workers greater control over the workplace and the products of their labor. A revolutionary overthrow of capitalist oppression and a transition to the socialist system. NOTE: THIS WEEK’S READINGS PROVIDE CONTRASTING VIEWS OF CAPITALISM AND MARXIST THEORY MARX’s SOLUTION TO ALIENATION (LAST WEEK)

8. Summarized and discussed Marx’s alienating features of industrial environment:  Powerlessness (cog in machine)  Meaninglessness (no sense of purpose)  Isolation (from system of organized production and its goals)  Self-estrangement (productive work was no longer an expression of the man) BLAUNER (1964)

9. Technology is the factor most responsible for giving an industry its character (and a worker’s alienation). The more homogenous the product, the more it lends itself to automated continuous improvement processes (and alienation). Explains technological arrangements in four industries: 1. Craft 2. Machine tending (use machines to produce product) 3. Assembly line 4. Continuous process (automation) BLAUNER (1964)

10. Industries also differ on methods of division of labor, social organizations, and economic structures. Together technology and the above three elements impact worker alienation. Studied job attitude survey data in four industries (used secondary data and collected data at a chemical plant) Discussed industries and processes around the four alienating features. BLAUNER (1964)

11. Four sources of powerlessness: 1.Separation from ownership of the means of production 2.Inability to influence general managerial policies 3.Lack of control over the conditions of employment 4.Lack of control over the immediate work process Blauner points our that workers are not just “commodities” but are becoming “employees” and have increasing control over conditions and work processes BLAUNER (1964)

12. Meaninglessness is unequally distributed among workers in modern industry. Things that affect are organization size, team/crew production, process vs. batch technology, etc. Isolation is not as prevalent due to the community nature of many organization (friendships are developed at work, feel a part of something, families may be brought together) Self-estrangement does not happen because of the discussion above as well as the fact that many people like non-involving steady jobs (p. 29) BLAUNER (1964)

13. Very critical of capitalism and control of labor within organizations. Concerned with the loss of thinking, “disassembly” of labor, mortal injury to the worker, etc. Views the the division of labor as dividing craft so as to not only cheapen parts, but to commoditize worker labor. All processes are simplified to the point of simple labor (no craft labor required). Talks about extending this to white collar workers. Highly critical of Taylor and Scientific Management. If you want to read a criticism of these, Braverman is the one. BRAVERMAN (1974)

14. Provided more of a “micro” discussion (talks about 3 different workers in 3 different organizations) of alienation by focusing on conflict and control within the workplace. Criticizes capitalism – concerned with the fall of democracy. “The labor process becomes an arena of class conflict, and the workplace becomes a contested terrain.” Hierarchy develops as a means of control (not for coordination) and there emerges a segmentation of interests as various parties fight for power and control. EDWARDS (1979)

15. Capital accumulation is impacted by “variations” in the market including competition, size of corporations, unions, level of class consciousness, government policies, speed of technological change. These can create constraints on capitalism and these often change over time. The company promises the workers a “career.” Effort to re-divide and split working class – “fractions.” As corporations become bigger and the state bureaucracy grows there is greater loss of freedom – “the great contradiction in bureaucratic control is its implicit tyranny.” EDWARDS (1979)

16. Good conceptual piece – by a doctoral candidate at Walden University (online institution/not AACSB-accredited) – about the interplay and inter-relationships between capitalism, corporations, accounting, and finance to sustainable capitalism. Very debatable points. Paper begins with a broad based discussion of capitalism and society. There is discussion of the evolution of capitalism and its spread around the world. The authors make special note of the moral and ethical arguments that underlie capitalism – there may be some debate on the importance of compassion/morals. HENRY et al. (2009)

17. There is agreement with Marx that capitalism would be/is being reformed – although not total agreement about what the reform will entail. The middle of the paper talks broadly about failures within capitalism in recent times. Uses specific examples (AIG, Delphi/GM, financial crisis), as well as a broader discussion of the upward economy accompanied by downward social trends.” The final part of the paper discusses the important role of accounting and finance personnel to be incorporated into strategy as a moral check to avoid malfeasance. HENRY et al. (2009)

18. How stock ownership/retirement programs impact Marxism. If Edwards is correct, Marxism and Bureaucracy cannot work and Capitalism leads to the loss of democracy and cannot succeed in the long term – what do we do? What balance needs to be struck between Capitalism and Marx’s discussion in order to build sustainable organizations? If any? FINALLY, ALSO CONSIDER