Organizational behavior and development Essay

Organizational change or development has evolved overall meaning of business. The set of market-driven, financial and technical changes which, in the eighties, faced better-informed consumers demanded the best and cheapest products accessible worldwide; producing these goods requisite the assimilation of both resources and knowledge on a global scale; at the same time, it became probable to transport information around the world at immensely reduced costs. s multinational organizations had leaned to pursue one of the three basic strategies attaining economies of scale through the centralized management of resources, having a strong (decentralized) national presence, and sharing universal a central pool of skills and experience the predicament for the new ‘transnational’ corporations was to unite these three, often conflicting, approaches into a single strategy: â€Å"To participate effectively, a company had to develop global competitiveness, international flexibility, and worldwide learning competence simultaneously†. Freivalds, J. 1995, 24-28) All these changes need a consummate degree of language interdependence and individual communication something which the usual structure of a multinational (the head office hub surrounded by satellite subsidiaries) is not intended to accommodate. Control has to give way to synchronization, and corporate culture becomes an issue of central significance. But, so as to understand how language functions in an organization, we require going beyond the framework. We also require understanding the points at which management myths stop working or cease to be useful; we require to look for discontinuities and uncertainties (Halcrow, A. 1999, 42-47). To turn language into a really competitive weapon in practical business, we require to start being more conscious of the language we, our colleagues and our competitors use and see it for what it actually is visionary myths, power struggles, group limits, discontinuities, auguries of changes to come or vestiges of changes past. And, when we recognize more about the limitations of organizational language, we will be better located to develop its potential. Discourse is variously used in the gender and language field. It maybe used in a linguistic sense to refer to language beyond that of words. Or it may be used in a post-structural sense to refer to broad systems of meaning discourse is not restricted to spoken language but also refers to written language (Weatherall, 2002, pp. 76–7) Available At: www. palgrave. com/pdfs/023000167X. df What does it mean for an organization to communicate in a particular, national language? A company might and most do have the corresponding of dialects, but a common native language has significant implications which supersede ‘regional’ differences such as these. To appreciate such implications, we require looking first at the role which communication and language particularly, plays in an organization. At the most simple level, communication provides two functions gathering and disseminating information. As, the eventual purpose of both functions is to precipitate action: a head office might act in response to feedback from customers channeled via its field sales force; workers on an assembly line might transform their working practices in accordance with new guiding principle from the operations management. Such actions are not limited to those formally sanctioned by the organization: information, and the actions which consequence from its transmission, can be official or unofficial. Indeed, every organization consists of subgroups who have diverse information needs and channels, and whose reactions to the similar set of stimuli differ. Language is not just the means by which people converse (that is, the medium in which items of information are spoken); it is also the purveyor of meaning. Data is simply information while it has meaning, and data without meaning cannot impetuous action. Language therefore provides a means by which we understand the relative implication of any information and decide how we will respond. Within an organization, the role of language is consequently analogous to other and more well-known aspects of cultural behaviour such as myths, practices and stories. They all offer a context from which we can conjecture meaning; they therefore mainly determine how we interpret information, and this in turn determines how we act. Take for instance the manager who comes in and strangely closes his or her office door. How people interpret this will depend on, amongst other factors, the representation of a closed door in that particular environment (problems? privacy? and myths (‘Smith did that just after being fired’). Just as with myths and stories, individuals in an organization (or organizations as a whole) might seek to persuade the way in which both conversion processes take place by managing the meaning of the language used: the greater the vagueness of the language, the less convenient or conventional the resulting action (Korn, L. B. 1990, May 22, 157-161). Starting with the similar basis of meaning which sharing a common language gives is obviously fundamental to this process, though the success with which this can be attained also depends on many other factors. Anthropologists and philosophers have argued that a national language characterized a ‘contract’ within society which underpins its common culture. Though, some countries are reluctant to have contact with other cultures due to cultural and religious conflicts. It is the lack of understanding that is at the root of all exclusiveness or prejudice, distrust or hatred (Allan, G. 1993, pp. 1-25). There are many examples of countries that are unenthusiastic to have contact with other cultures. For instance, relationship between Israel and Islamic countries, Pakistan and India etc The disparity between the diverse cultures in the world today on reflection is seen to be one of language or appearance more than anything else. The entire of mankind forms a single species; and external diversities of feature and color, stature and deportment, behavior and customs notwithstanding, man ubiquitously is but man, a certain human quality supplying the relation of unity in the middle of all diversity. Humanity is one, and human culture as the appearance of an aspiration, an Endeavour and an attainment, is also one. The countries that are unwilling to contact with other cultures are losing permutations and combinations of the same or similar basic elements of human culture. Basically, the physical urge for getting and begetting, for living and spreading, is everywhere present, as also is the aspiration for a state of permanent happiness for â€Å"all this, and heaven too†. This desire, which is roughly as forceful as the physical urge, is shared by the entire of mankind and has raised men above the level of the simply animal. Religion, with its Janus-face of fear and hope, attempts to untangle the mystery of life and being. These attempts, leading to science and philosophy and nurturing of the emotions (opening up the limitless joys of art and mysticism), are general to mankind in all ages and climes, and they spring all over from the pursuit of what the sages of India regarded as the only end for which man is actually striving cessation of suffering and achievement of an definitive and abiding happiness. And in this common striving, there has never been any segregation of a particular people or group of men from other peoples or groups, whenever contact between them either direct or indirect was made probable (Lane, H.  W. , DiStephano, J. J. , & Maznevski, M. L. 1997). The mainsprings of human culture are thus the same, they are common; and assured ideals, values, attitudes or behaviors, whether good or bad from absolute or relative points of view, have constantly been found to be transmissible. These ideals, values, attitudes or behaviors form patterns comparable to languages. All provide to meet the minimum needs of man, but those which state most adequately and most skillfully the aspirations, the endeavors and the achievements of man naturally have a predominant place in the affairs of men. Certain patterns of culture thus stand out pre-eminent; and, becoming feeders and sustainers of weaker or less complete ones, they attain an international and comprehensive status (Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. 1995). This play of action and communication in the cultural sphere is going on for ever. The opposing forces of centrifuge and centripetence are also constantly operating and strife with infrequent violent modification of one pattern by another, or harmony deliberately or instinctively brought about is also in evidence (Allan, G. 998). With the hope of one world, one mankind and one happiness for all inspiring our men of learning and wisdom to find a path that can be followed by all, this contemplative readiness for a single world culture was never greater than now. We leave aside, of course, men of narrow viewpoint whose intransigent support of one particular prototype is merely an unconscious expression of a blind selfishness which has its roots in both ignorance and a ye arning for domination. The time is certainly ripe, and the stage is set, for a correct understanding of the diverse patterns of culture and for exploring the methods for their harmonizing, taking our stand on the essentials and not on the accidentals, on the agreements and not on the divergences. While this is achieved, and mankind everywhere is trained to recognize the fundamental agreement based on the individuality of human aspirations, a new period in the history of humanity will instigate. Besides, as every global organization has its own language for talking concerning strategy: certainly it is possible to track the way in which the organization is developing by the words it uses to illustrate its strategy. If the language of strategy has any single source, it perhaps lies in classical warfare: our plans for expansion and competition remain heavily if unconsciously influenced by ideas of winning wars, beating our enemies, securing our position. However, management strategy first evolved a characteristic language of its own in the sixties and was focused on the decisions taken by management and the types of analysis requisite to ease them: decision-making was the essential activity of management, as decisions led to actions (Hays, R. D. 1974; 25-37). By the mid eighties, the analogies were architectural: strategies were the infrastructure, people the consumable building blocks. The respect principally since the late 1980s that the perimeters of organizations were no longer strong walls has given us a rather diverse vocabulary, drawn from biology and evolutionary theory: our strategic vocabulary is more and more drawn from the natural, rather than the man-made, world: ‘webs’, ‘porous boundaries’, business ‘ecosystems’, and those words which disguised a rigid framework or clear demarcation are starting to fall from favor. Linked to this trend is the idea that thriving organizations efficiently go beyond language they do not need to communicative their strategy because everyone already knows it. However, if we believe that strategy has its own, distinctive language, then this trend is just the most modern development in its evolution: rather than being precise and analytical, the language of strategy is becoming less specific qualitative instead of quantitative. What matters most is that the language is diverse. If the language is different, then the organization can do something different: if the language is that which the organization already uses, then the strategy cannot transform the status quo (Lester, T. 1994, 42-45). The richest sources of new language frequently lie within an organization, but among those people hardly ever asked to put in to its strategy, such as people on the customer front line, new recruits, and many more. Who these people are specifically varies from organization to organization and is a function of the way in which an individual organization manages language. Thus, to recognize ways in which you can incorporate a new language into your own organization’s strategy, you first require understanding how language is managed across your organization as a whole. Language plays a key role in this process: when we think of an organization, the model we tend to have in our minds is one in which those at the top talk, as those at the bottom do. Flatter organizations and the empowerment of those who work in them can mean that the sharing of talking and doing has changed, but I think most of us would still have difficulties in finding a company where this division has totally disappeared, particularly when it is applied to internal processes such as developing a strategy (Nurden, R. 997). Taking the words from the bottom of your organization, rather than from the top, reverses this state: it means that the doers start talking. The effect is less suspicion about language (from the doers) and a diverse way of using language (for the talkers): both ways, it moves the goalposts in terms of what the strategy sounds like, making it more likely that the organization as a whole will listen more efficiently.