Goffee and Jones Focus on Sociability and Solidarity - Coursework Example

When analysing organisational cultures, Goffee and Jones focus on sociability and solidarity. Is their kind of analysis useful for today’s organisational leaders? Introduction In their analysis of the factors that hold the modern organisation together, Goffee and Jones (1996) focus on sociability and solidarity. They assert that these two categories of human relations can be used to define human behaviours, and thus define the types of cultures that organisations are likely to adopt. Although Goffee and Jones (1996) point out that solidarity and sociability may initially seem not to reflect the whole array of human behaviours, they also posit that the two categories of human relations “have stood the test of close scrutiny” (p. 134). The aim of this essay is to evaluate whether the kind of organisational analysis offered by the two authors is useful with regard to today’s organisation. The essay will achieve this by looking at other measures that have been used to analyse organisational cultures and what other authors have said about solidarity and sociability. In particular, the essay seeks to evaluate whether in deed sociability and solidarity have ‘stood the test of close scrutiny’, to the extent that such evaluation of companies’ cultures as noted by Goffee and Jones (1996) can still be used by today’s organisational leaders. The focus on sociability and solidarity In their article, Goffee and Jones (1996) state that from the perceptive sociology, the community can be divided into two different types of human relations: solidarity and sociability. They define sociability as measure of genuine cordiality amongst members of a society or community. The two authors also define solidarity as a gauge of a community’s capacity to work together in pursuit of shared objectives not only fast but also effectively, irrespective of the individual personal ties that the members of the community have. Goffee and Jones (1996) have focused on solidarity and sociability because of the significance of these two concepts. To start with, it is argued that sociability represents the types of social interactions that are valued by a community. In addition, the phenomenon of sociability is sustained through the regular face-to-face relations that people have, and it is characterised by unarticulated reciprocity. That is, people are sociable when they can do good for others without necessarily expecting a reward for what they do or making prearranged deals. Goffee and Jones (1996) also note that in organisations, sociability is important because it is oftentimes a boon for creativity. This is because it promotes working in teams, information sharing, and the spirit of being open to new ideas. It also allows the members of an organisation the freewill to express themselves and accept ‘thinking outside the box’. More importantly, the two authors suggest that sociability leads the creation of an environment in which there is a high likelihood of individuals going beyond the formal expectations of their jobs, meaning that the individuals are likely to deliver more than they are formally expected to. As implied by Goffee and Jones (1996), sociability makes people work harder than it is technically required so as to help their colleagues and hence make their community look good and successful. But Goffee and Jones (1996) have also identified some drawbacks of high levels of sociability. They opine that the prevalence of friendships may cause poor performance to be accepted. This is because friends may not want to criticise each other even when something wrong happens. As well, the authors note that environments that are characterised by high sociability often feature an overstated need for consensus, meaning that friends will always avoid disagreements. In a business environment, this can lead to fewer deliberations regarding the organisation’s strategies and goals, which may ultimately lead to poor performance. Further, organisations that have high sociability often tend to create networks that circumvent or undermine the processes that have been established (Goffee & Jones, 1996). Turning to solidarity, Goffee and Jones (1996) have indicated that this concept is related to doing common tasks, having mutual interests, or having shared goals that can benefits all the parties involved. For instance, employees form labour unions to fight for their rights. Similarly, organisations can promote solidarity among their employees towards the achievement of a given objective. When there is a high level of solidarity, employees tend to be more focused and quick to act. They also tend trust each other and their leaders, and hence, they become more committed and loyal to the organisation. But Goffee and Jones (1996) have also stated that solidarity may be costly to an organisation if it is not used for the right purpose. For instance, when the benefits of solidarity are not clear, the people in an organisation may not join in pursuing the targeted goals. Based on Goffee and Jones’ (1996) analysis, solidarity and sociability can be applied to the culture of an organisation when they are plotted graphically against each other. The authors argue that doing so results in four types of communities or organisational cultures: networked (low solidarity, high sociability); mercenary (high solidarity, low sociability); communal (high solidarity, high sociability); and fragmented (low solidarity, low sociability). This is illustrated in the figure below. Networked Communal Fragmented Mercenary Source: Goffee and Jones (1996, p. 34) Analysis of the four cultures created from solidarity and sociability with respect to organisations The four cultures that are created from different combinations of solidarity and sociability as outlined by Goffee and Jones (1996) have different implications for organisations as well as the leaders of these organisations. To understand these implications, Goffee and Jones’s (1996) categorisation of cultures needs to be compared with other categorisations, and Sonnenfeld’s (1988) categorisation comes to mind. Sonnenfeld (1988) also defined four types of cultures: the club, the academy, the fortress and the baseball team. The club concerns itself with how individuals fit well into the organisation. The academy allows individuals to do different types of jobs, thus making them able to move around within the organisation. The fortress denotes an organisation that is primarily concerned with survival. Lastly, the baseball team comprises people who are rewarded heftily for what they accomplish but who can readily leave the organisation when a better opportunity arises. The implications of the different categorisations are as follows. To begin with, a networked culture, which is characterised by low solidarity and high sociability, is one in which the individuals in an organisation feel like a family and socialise often. Such organisations get involved in social activities such as celebrating their employees’ birthdays, having nicknames for different individuals, honouring employees for their long service, making in-house jokes and so forth. Sadri and Lees (2001) have observed that the networked culture matches loosely with Sonnenfeld’s club culture. A mercenary culture (high solidarity, low sociability) implies that individuals are united in supporting the organisation’s strategic goals but do not interact much socially. Individuals do not have a high sense of loyalty to the organisation but only stay as long as they are able to meet their personal needs. This category is comparable to the baseball team in Sonnenfeld’s categorisation (Sadri & Lees, 2001). A communal culture (high solidarity, high sociability) is noted to be common in small start-up organisations. Members of such organisations work together closely for long periods of time and also tend to socialise together. Sadri and Lees (2001) have likened this type of culture to the academy in Sonnenfeld’s categorisation. Finally, the fragmented culture (low solidarity, low sociability) means that the people in an organisation rarely intermingle. They may work from home or in their office with office doors closed, as the case in many law firms or in companies that are downsizing (Sadri & Lees, 2001). Sadri and Lees (2001) have drawn similarities between a fragmented culture and Sonnenfeld’s fortress. Is Goffee and Jones’ (1996) analysis of culture useful for today’s organisational leaders? The question of whether Goffee and Jones’ (1996) focus on solidarity and sociability is useful for leaders of organisations today or not can be answered by looking at how relevant the two concepts are today. To start with, it is important to point out that although Goffee and Jones (1996) came up with four cultures based on how different levels of solidarity and sociability combine, the two authors also indicated that none of these cultures can be regard as “the best” (p. 134). This means that the authors were not postulating that there is a specific preferred culture that organisations should pursue; rather they were pointing to the different cultures that organisations find themselves embracing when they combine different levels of solidarity and sociability. This makes the analysis useful for today’s organisational leaders. As well, since the authors noted that solidarity and sociability are human relations that “have stood the test of close scrutiny” (Goffee & Jones p. 134), there is an indication that they came up with their suggestion after conducting various studies on different organisations. More importantly, since the categorisations of culture given by the two authors based on sociability and solidarity tend to match with previous categorisations such as that by Sonnenfeld (1988), there is an indication that the analysis was useful not only for organisations that existed in the past but also for present-day organisations. Several works written about organisational culture also show that the type of culture that an organisation adopts depends on the levels of solidarity and sociability that exist within the organisation. For instance, in an article titled “What leaders really do”, Kotter (2001) notes that leading an organisation to achieve change requires an organisational leader to develop a vision and strategies that are appropriate to achieve that vision. In addition, in order to achieve the vision, the leader needs to motivate and inspire people to move in the right direction in spite of the obstacles that might arise. Various authors (Smith, 2003; Fisher, 2009; Miner, 2005; Mackay, 2007) have also emphasised the need for leaders to motivate and inspire their subordinates so as to foster change in organisations. The aforementioned ideas can be related to the concepts of solidarity and sociability since employees need to various levels of the two notions in order to embrace the vision established by the organisational leader. It has also been pointed out that a good vision is one that serves the interests of important stakeholders such as employees, customers, and stockholders (Kotter, 2001). It can be argued that such a vision can enhance sociability among the various players involved and hence their solidarity towards achieving their set goals. The different levels of solidarity that sociability that the organisational leader promotes will in turn determine the culture of the organisation. As well, the organisation’s leader must depict a certain level of sociability since sociability has been categorised as one of the traits that have an impact on leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008). The usefulness focusing on solidarity and sociability as determinants of the cultures in organisations today is also emphasised based on various studies that have been conducted along the two dimensions. In one study Rashid, Sambasivan and Rahman (2004) investigated the influence of organisational culture on the attitudes of people toward change in organisations in Malaysia, with regard to the various categorisations of culture as defined by Goffee and Jones (1996). Their findings suggested that organisations with different types of cultures (communal, mercenary, network and fragmented) have different perceptions towards organisational change. For instance, the findings suggest that organisations with a mercenary culture have strong positive attitudes towards change. On the other hand, organisations with an exaggerated concern for consensus (due to high sociability) tend to be less tolerant to change. This is because such a culture does not promote criticism and questioning, which leads to insufficient focus on an organisation’s mission, goals and strategy (Rashid et al., 2004). In another study, Niemann and Kotzé (2006) investigated the relationship between the leadership practice of school principals and school cultures across 30 schools. Using some sets of leadership practices, they found out that each of the practices that was tested was positively correlated with either of the “two main elements of organisational culture: sociability or solidarity” (p. 609). This means that based on the findings by Niemann and Kotzé (2006), solidarity and sociability do have an influence on the type of culture that an organisation adopts. This coincides with the assertions made by Goffee and Jones (1996) in their analysis. The mere fact that Niemann and Kotzé (2006) relied on solidarity and sociability in their study of organisational culture also signifies the usefulness of the two human relations concepts to leaders of present-day organisations. As noted by Goffee and Jones (1996), among the four cultures that arise from the different combinations of sociability and solidarity, there is none that can be regarded as the ‘best’. This view is supported by Simpson and Taylor (2003) when they note that how an organisation combines solidarity and sociability is dependent on the nature of the organisation’s activities and the availability of skilled personnel. For instance, a task-oriented organisation such as an accountancy company may not be much interested in the social relations of employees at work. However, in an organisation in which employees deal frequently and directly with customers, there may be much focus on developing friendliness. On the other hand, when an accountancy firm is faced with inadequacy of skilled staff, its emphasis on solidarity may be changed to encourage a more sociable organisation with reduced rigidity and formality so as to attract more skilled employees. Conversely, the leadership of an organisation may feel that the organisation has grown to be too social (which may lead to complacency) and solidarity is being lost. In such a case, the organisation can increase solidarity by reminding its employees about issues such as need for high quality and focus on competition to revitalise performance and decrease sociability (Simpson & Taylor, 2003). Therefore, it is apparent that different organisations do adopt different types of organisational cultures depending on the situations that they are in. What is important is that these cultures vary depending on how the leaders of the organisations combine sociability and solidarity to suit the needs of their organisations. Conclusion In conclusion, Goffee and Jones’ (1996) focus on solidarity and sociability when analysing organisational cultures is useful for organisational leaders today because of the reasons that have been pointed out. As noted in the discussion, the two authors suggested that sociability and solidarity have proved to be reliable as measures of human relations; hence, they are important predictors of culture. This view is supported by various authors, who have concurred that the cultures that organisations adopt depend on the levels of solidarity and sociability that are exhibited in these organisations. As well, it has been pointed out that the nature of an organisation’s activities and availability of skilled staff determine how the organisation combines solidarity and sociability. All these points of view suggest that even though different organisations have different cultures, the cultures depend on the levels of solidarity and sociability that are embraced by the organisations. As a result, the kind of analysis used by Goffee and Jones (1996) in regard to organisational cultures is useful for today’s organisational leaders. References Bass, B.M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed). New York: The free Press. Fisher, E.A. (2009). Administration in social work motivation and leadership in social work management: A review of theories and related studies. Administration in Social Work, 33(2), 347-367. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (1996). What holds the modern company together? Harvard Business Review. November-December. Kotter, J.P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review. December. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2001/12/what-leaders-really-do Mackay, A. (2007). Motivation, ability and confidence building in people. New York: Routledge. Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational Behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Niemann, R., & Kotzé, T. (2006). The relationship between leadership practices and organisational culture: an education management perspective. South African Journal of Education, 26(4), 609-624. Rashid, M.Z.A., Sambasivan, M., & Rahman, A. A. (2004). The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 161-179. Sadri, G., & Lees, B. (2001). Developing corporate culture as a competitive advantage. Journal of Management Development, 20(10), 853-859. Simpson, J., & Taylor, J. (2003). Corporate governance ethics and CSR. London: Kogan Page Limited. Smith, M.E. (2003). Changing an organisation’s culture: Correlates of success and failure. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 249-261. Sonnenfeld, J. (1988). The hero’s farewell. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More