Work Organization And Organizational Identity

Classical Understanding of Work Organization and Organizational Identity

Discuss about the case study Business Management for Idea of work Organization.

The idea of work organization can be identified as control of occupation and the allotment of tasks. It involves the tasks executed, the persons performing them and how the way of performing the task. Now, the idea of “work identity” is typically involved with successful work organization. Work identification can be described as the extent to which a parson draws his/her sense of self from the organizational values, occupation and the product or services provided by that certain organization. Now, it can easily be understood that a positive work identity creates a job satisfaction among the employees, which helps in executing an effective as well as successful work organization. Moreover, a number of positive organizational outcomes are associated with the organizational identity. These are: work performance, organizational commitment, employee retention and many more. However, concentrating on the organizational identity in the context of work organization is not an old approach. The previous organizational theories have a little concern about it. However, it is changing by holding the hand of the contemporary work organization approaches.

To discuss the classical understanding of work organization, it is needed to review the classical concepts of organizational identity. As opined by Hogg & Terry, (2014) the social identity theory provided by Tajfel and Turner in 1986, explains identity “a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s).” According to them, the group can be identified as one of the major sources of pride and self-esteem. As opined by Haslam et al., (2014) validation within the group provided a sense of worth to the individual. The craving for validation also compels the individual to behave in a certain manner. Thus, the importance of group cannot be ignored in shaping the identity of an individual. As discussed by Gioia et al., (2013) the classical work identity approach treated it as relatively fixed. However, a number of challenges can be identified while discussing about the classical conception of organizational identity. As discussed by Schultz & Hernes, (2013) the classical approach of identity does not consider the idea that with the changes in the work pattern or organizational goals, people continuously changes identify and self-understanding. On the other hand, the classical concepts do not reflect on the societal and cultural changes those are typically instrumental in altering the identity negotiation and creation.

Modern Understanding of Work Organization and Organizational Identity

Now within the organizational setup, the classical approach of identity may be used. In the classical theories regarding organization approached identity in this way. As mentioned by Burke, (2013) the Bureaucratic model of organization developed by Max Weber totally focuses on the hierarchical model. According to this model, the organization works under well-defined rules and specifications. This model says that the employee has a defined power and authority based on his/her expertise. As opined by Hatch & Cunliffe, (2013) within this formalized approach, people need to follow the set rules and code of conduct. As discussed in the classical approaches of “identity”, it creates a sense of fixed identity among the employees. This classical approach of organization was not bothered with creating an organizational identity among the employees. As mentioned by Reid & Robinson, (2016), the social groups are the instruments of creating an identity among the members. This approach ignored the importance of the environmental factors in shaping identity. Within the classical models of organization, the companies are mostly autocratic and the scope of creating employee identity is almost absent (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013).

On the other hand, within the framework of the classical “scientific management” theory by Frederick Winslow Taylor in 1911, it is needed for the companies to control the labor force (Denhardt, & Catlaw, 2014). However, this particular theory has provided a better care to the employee identification issue. As opined by Egeberg, Gornitzka & Trondal, (2016) the principals of scientific management replaced the rule-of thumb method with the organization. It has provided the organizations approach that is more democratic. Thus, the employees may feel encouraged to work within that organization and thus feel more connected. Moreover, as opined by Shafritz, Ott & Jang, (2015), the principle of this particular theory talks about providing training sessions to the management as well as the employees, to obtain the best potentials of the employees. However, any means of creating employee motivation and identification is not mentioned in the theory. Furthermore, the theory rebukes the idea that the primary interests of the workers and the employers are not antagonistic.

As opined by Denhardt & Catlaw (2014) these classical theories of work organization was more about employer oriented. Hence, not a much importance was given to the idea of creating organizational identity. The classical identity approaches have not also provided much importance to the professional instruments in creating identity within the individuals. However, the modern and the neoclassical theories of work organization are more directed towards the employee satisfaction, which is one of the major fundamentals of organizational identity among the employees.

Contingency Theory

On the other hand, the modern theories of organizational identification explain identity in a separate manner. As opined by Denhardt & Catlaw, (2014), the contemporary theories treat identity as a sense that an employee draws from the organizational setup and environment. As opined by Haslam et al., (2014) in the contemporary ideas the work identity greatly depends on the organizational culture. The contemporary organizational theories are more employee oriented and the issues considered by them are the fundamentals of the modern identity approach. 

The modern organizations are typically employee oriented. Today’s organizations are well aware of the importance of job satisfaction and employee retention for achieving the aim of profit maximization. The neoclassical theory, the “Human Relation Approach”, talks about the integration of informal groups within the organization (Burke, 2013). Here, the idea of contemporary organizational identity differs from the previous theories. As opined by Denhardt & Catlaw, (2014) here, the “managers may promote, more or less self-consciously, a particular form of organizational experience”. Thus, as discussed in the human relation approach; by providing a good experience within the organization, the work identity of the employees can be manipulated. As opined by Hatch & Cunliffe, (2013) the human relation approach considers the existence and importance of employee expectations and the socio cultural message of their job roles. As described by Burke, (2013) these particular issues can be identified as some of the building blocks of work identity within the employees.

As opined by Mikes & Kaplan, (2014) the major concern of the modern managers in the organizations is managing the internal environments. The modern organizations concentrate on building identity within the employees.  As discussed by Egeberg, Gornitzka & Trondal, (2016) within the contemporary setup, the organizations try to regulate the identity of the employees. They consider it as an important aspect of organizational control. Hence, they focus on creating discourses and ideology. It helps the employees to understand the values or the core of the organization and creates a sense of identity.

As described in the modern “contingency theory”, there is no best model or process of managing an organization (Mikes & Kaplan, 2014). A wide range of external and internal issues has to the considered and some focused actions must be taken to eliminate those issues. This particular theory concentrates on the importance of the employee motivation and organizational identity for managing the internal contingencies.  As described by Gioia et al., (2013) the modern identity approach, talks about the fundamental importance of ideologies, organizational values and job role in creating the organizational identity. The contingency theorists have taken the same idea. As opined by Egeberg, Gornitzka & Trondal, (2016) expert roles are matter to peripheral expectations. Hence, applied activities of motivation and leading are important within the organizational setup.

Thus, these modern or contemporary approaches treat the importance of organizational identity among the employees to generate better motivation and employee retention with a great care. The humanistic approach of the organizations creates a better organizational identity and ensures better performance. With an increased level of organizational identity, the modern organizations can be able to gain better competitive advantage and customer choice.

Conclusion:

Hence, from the above discussion, in can be concluded that with changes in the organizational concept in the contemporary professional world the idea of work identity has changed a lot. The importance of work identity in work organization is many folds. As described by a number of scholastic theories, organizational identification provides a greater level of commitment within the employees towards the organization. For implementing an effective work organization, it is important for the management to provide a sense of connection and familiarity to the organizational values as well as climate. Aware of the advantages to the organization themselves, various creative and ambitious companies intentionally promote organizational identity among the workers by “identity regulation” and “identity narration”. Organizational identity typically depends on the individual’s perception about the organization – its status, the extent of communication and patronage it provides them, and the way of representing its corporate identity. Hence, the companies need to create an acceptable and dignified identity so that it helps the employees to be committed to the organization.

References:

Burke, W. W. (2013). Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Denhardt, R. B., & Catlaw, T. J. (2014). Theories of public organization. Cengage Learning.

Egeberg, M., Gornitzka, Å., & Trondal, J. (2016). 2. Organization theory.Handbook on Theories of Governance, 32.

Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L., & Corley, K. G. (2013). Organizational identity formation and change. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 123-193.

Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Ellemers, N. (Eds.). (2014). Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. Psychology Press.

Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press.

He, H., & Brown, A. D. (2013). Organizational identity and organizational identification A review of the literature and suggestions for future research.Group & Organization Management, 38(1), 3-35.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (Eds.). (2014). Social identity processes in organizational contexts. Psychology Press.

Mikes, A., & Kaplan, R. S. (2014, October). Towards a contingency theory of enterprise risk management. AAA.

Reid, S. A., & Robinson, B. (2016). Social Identity Theories. The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication.

Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21.

Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2015). Classics of organization theory. Cengage Learning.