Essays on Goffee and Jones Focus on Sociability and Solidarity Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Goffee and Jones Focus on Sociability and Solidarity" is an outstanding example of management coursework.   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 organizational 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 indeed 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 a 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.  

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.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us