Workplace Management Dynamics IntroductionThe textbook titled “The Sociology of Work” by Keith (2005, p. 110-150) outlines a number of models, concepts, and theories on the dynamics between management and employees. Among the presented concepts, models, and theories, they provide a thorough description of this relationship remarkably accurately. The dynamics between the management and employees of a given organization is diverse subject to extraordinarily many issues that govern the activities of the given organization. Some of the theories relevant to the relationships between employees and management as espoused in the book include Coercion Theory, Contingency Theories, Rational Choice Theory and the Organizational Culture Concept (Keith 2005, p.
110-150). This paper discusses the mentioned theories and concepts applying them in how they explain the dynamics between management and employees. From the book “The Sociology of Work” by Keith, Coercion theory has been well explained with its emergence detailed and its application in the work place outlined. The theory is argued to have emerged from behavioral perspectives that are normally maintained in the relationships between individuals through positive reinforcement or other forms of rewards (Keith 2005, p.
110-150). In applying the same to the dynamics between management and employees the theory espouses that conflict arises between the two subjects especially when rewards do not exist (Barry 2003, p. 53 – 62). Definitions of coercion provided in the argument by Keith give a proper explanation where he argues that there are situations in which coercion is steadfast and of necessity for the successful existence of good relations between the two subjects. Coercion has been used by the management of many organizations as a strategy to control behavior in employees where the later do not conform to the standards expected in a given organization (Gareth 1997, p.
256-65). Roderick (2000, p. 423 – 428) developed an argument on coercion theory after he carried out a study interaction patterns within a work environment. He made arguments that the coercion theory incorporates a set of statements relating to control techniques that the management of organizations employs to shape the employees. In argument, within a given wok environment, there has to exist some laws and policies governing the same and management is responsible to oversee the practice of these policies and codes of conducts (Gareth 1997, p.
256-65). Normally, there is a group of employees or particular individuals who do not conform to the code of expected behavior and in reality coercion must be applied by the management if the organization is to succeed in realizing its overall goals (Klaus-Peter 2005, p. 493 – 507). Papa (2008, p. 78-82) was quick to note that, in the relationship between the management and the employees, aversive action has a substantial impact on the overall performance of the individual or the performance of a particular group.
A study on the same noted that, for any behavior of an individual to be referred as coercive it must be aversive and following particular behaviors consistently (Jessica and Angeline 2009, p. 347 – 364). The same behavior has to produce consistent reactions ultimately serving the aggressor. The management of a given organization can reinforce coercive behaviors in employee unknowingly by scolding, yelling at them or being nagging, and this is a common situation in the dynamics between employees and management.
With such behaviors emanating from the management, they arouse coercive interaction. However, Keith in “The Sociology of Work” makes a better argument in that the reason why the management makes such steps if because of ignorance or the disobedience of the employees. When an employee continues being disobedient at the work place despite the management’s aversive behaviors, the management eventually is argued to reach an exhaustion point (Papa 2008, p. 78-82). In reaching such a point, negative reinforcement of the employee’s misbehavior occurs when the management fails to follow through with absolute consequences (Black 2003, p.
67-89). Because the management backs down, failing to discipline the disobedient employees adequately, the employees learn that they can coerce the leaders who serve as the management into meeting their needs (Keith 2005, p. 110-150). The employees are then aware that if they continue being disobedient or respond to the leader's behaviors with increased aggression, ultimately, they have a say over the situation and can easily shape the leader’s behaviors as they wish.