Workplace Management Dynamics - Literature review Example

Workplace Management Dynamics Introduction The 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. What makes Keith the best in his book “The Sociology of Work” in explaining the dynamic between the employee and management is the diverse argument it takes. The argument draws the assertion that other principles of coercion theory are more about the frequency of coercive interactions. It also opens up to the payoffs emanating from the use of coercive behaviors. As the frequency of coercive behaviors increases, the employee-management interaction is likely to escalate (Barry 2003, p. 53 – 62). Also, as the conflict duration increases the chance that the aggression goes to the extremes is highly possible (Black 2003, p. 67-89). With the coercive interactions occurring over time, the employee learns to move quickly in situations of aggressive behavior meaning that any relationship between the two is always guarded with caution (Keith 2005, p. 110-150). In such situations, the employee is said to increase his ability of controlling the leaders taking the management positions. Due to this management in turn starts doubting its ability of intervening in any of the confrontational situation arising at the work environment and in turn withdraws from such situations. Roderick (2000, p. 423 – 428) espouses that at such a level of coercion, where the management tends to give up on the behavior of some employees, the employee receive negative reinforcement consistently in that they are free and can easily explore a variety of aversive strategies because they fear no consequence. The explanation given by Keith in “The Sociology of Work” is worth the trust in explaining the dynamics between the management and employees because it also explains that, in their relations, certain patterns are formed. These patterns formed are regular at the work places where employees seem to react with situations (Papa 2008, p. 78-82). The employees behave subject to the situation at hand and the leader taking charge at the moment (Jessica and Angeline 2009, p. 347 – 364). Findings from leading research studies have supported this argument basing on principles of coercion theory (Keith 2005, p. 110-150). The best of these supporting researches are the researches indicating that coercive behavior develops in patterns, and the management-employee interactions contribute to this development determining what pattern develops and how it does within the work place (Klaus-Peter 2005, p.493 – 507). Keith also in the book “The Sociology of Work” detailed more on the contingency theory using it thoroughly to explain the dynamics between the employee and the management particularly at the workplace. Contingency theory has been categorized under classical, behavioral theories which assert that there is no ultimate way that can be established as what can lead a company the best way (Papa 2008, p. 78-82). They are also on the base of argument that no single approach would better be applied to make particular decisions within an organization. What the theory tries to explain is that any optimal course of action in the dynamics between the employee and management is contingent and solely dependent on the situation (Barry 2003, p. 53 – 62). Klaus-Peter (2005, p.493 – 507) argued in favor of the theory that the ability of the leader to lead employees in an organization is contingent and has to depend on situational factors. Some of these factors espoused as being determinants include the preferred style of leadership, the capabilities, as well as the behaviors of the employee in that given organization and in such situational factors (Keith 2005, p. 110-150). The argument is that there are no common ways of established relationships between the management and employee of a given organization. What happens is that the relationships between the two are subject to situational analysis and other subsequent factors. Roderick (2000, p. 423 – 428) notes that contingency theories contend that there are no established ways that the management of a particular organization follows because if they would exist, the management would fail in some circumstances. It is apparent that one established best way of leading to a particular situation might apparently not work best in other situations (Black 2003, p. 67-89). An effect of this argument is that the identified efficient leaders by the management because of their effectiveness in particular places and specific times may at times become acutely inefficient when transplanted to another situation. The same might happen when the factors around the leaders change. Michael (2002, p. 98-105) argued in his works that this is the determinant of the dynamics between the employee and the management owing to the fact that their relationship is dynamic with the situations prevailing. Contingency theory has also been espoused as relevant in explaining diverse circumstances in different organizational situations. The theory also gives explanations of why some leadership styles apply well in managing employees than others and derive an understanding of the approaches that the management uses in motivating them (Keith 2005, p. 110-150). Additionally, contingency theory is an approach in the work setting by recognizing the organizational, structural issues, for instance centralization or decentralization, levels of management, span of control, and decision -making process giving a detailed analysis of what suits particular setting (Papa 2008, p. 78-82). The theory is excellent in deriving understanding of what environment suits particular employees. In this case, it explains why employees suit differently in particular environments and in explaining some of the decisions made by the management in the operations of a given organization (Barry 2003, p. 53 – 62). Additionally, the contingency theory explains what happens in the development of organizational culture within the work environment, levels of conflict, individual differences, and the recognition of the divergent variables in the relations between the two parties involved (Roderick 2000, p. 423 – 428). In general Keith (2005, p. 110-150) summed the whole issue by articulating that approaches of motivating employees as applied by the respective management differ all because they are divergent and the contingency theory is best suited to explain this. The book by Keith also describes the Rational Choice Theory as a theory suited best in explaining the management and employee relations. The theory is argued as applied considering the fact that individuals make rational decisions (Black 2003, p. 67-89). It is apparent that in a given organization, employees, and management relations is based on the arrived decisions and this is what determines these relations (Roderick 2000, p. 423 – 428). Theorists supporting this argument presume that the individuals within an organization make decisions appropriately that would help them in establishing sound relations with their peers (Barry 2003, p. 53 – 62). The management is on the spotlight in this case where they are viewed as making decisions based on establishing strong relations with the employees. The managements have to appropriately understand the employees in the entire process and input them as a consideration when making the decision. The analysis of the individuals extends to a point where the management examines how choices made by the employee interact in producing outcomes. A rational-choice analysis of the employee’s expectations for instance would involve a description of (I) the employee’s desires (II) the best motivational strategies and other variables related to establishing the right decision. The question that comes up clearly in all this is the way employees make choices and their reception towards particular changes in the work place (Black 2003, p. 67-89). The issue in this is that even being the head of an organization and making the appropriate decisions, the management needs to consider the employees for them to make rational decisions (Barry 2003, p. 53 – 62). The question that the management inputs in the analysis is how the employees handle some issues and how well they can verse with particular changes. Otherwise, without this consideration, the decision made by the management might not at all be rational indeed. Elmer (1999, p. 280 – 292) looked into this issue deeper and argued that the rational-choice approach to a particular problem by the management is based on the assumption that the choices made by management are choices best in helping motivate employees and ultimately assist in achieving the organization’s goals and objectives. In other words, Black (2003, p. 67-89) argued that the management within a given organization makes decisions related to employees with a consideration of the consequences guarding every aspect of the future reactions and the outcome of the decisions. Keith makes it even better in understanding the dynamics between management and employees with a closer look into the Organizational Culture Concept. The book, “The Sociology of Work” has also detailed more on the concept of organizational culture clearly in that it has a significant influence in determining the dynamics between management and employees. “The Sociology of Work” suggests that the established culture of an organization develops to help the management and the employees easily cope with the immediate environment. Keith (2005, p. 110-150) noted that organizational leaders always have a role to play in which complex issues arise in the efforts of generating organizational achievement. However, it is noted clearly that for a leader to be successful his approach is dependent on understanding organizational culture. Tony (2009, p. 258 – 269) looked into organizational culture as a concept describing the attitudes, experiences, individual beliefs and the psychology of the people in a particular environment. The best definition comes from Cummings and Worley (2005, p. 45-76) who asserts that this concept describes a collection of values which are normally shared in a given organization controlling ways and modes of interactions within the organization. Organization culture, therefore, dictates the dynamics between individual employees and management with the establishment of the basics in the interaction process (Keith 2005, p. 110-150). The concept also dictates on the best approaches which the management should take in retaining the employees and motivating them to improve their efficiency at the work place. Conclusion Keith Grint in his book “The Sociology of Work” has excellent works that have detailed a lot to do with the dynamics between management and employees. He has discussed a number of models, concepts, and theories in these dynamics providing a better understanding on the same. Among the theories best explaining the dynamics between management and employees include Coercion Theory, Contingency Theories, Rational Choice Theory and the Organizational Culture Concept. The tenets of these theories best explain these dynamics and supported by other scholarly works. Coercion theory is argued to explain the strategies which the management uses to coarse employees to align with the organization goals. Contingency theory is argued to explain why there are diversified approaches to management in a given organization owing to the situation in play. The rationale theory, on the other hand, looks into how the management makes rational choices that align with employees expectations while the Organizational Culture concept explains how the management and employees best relate in a particular environment through the establishment of a common culture. References Barry, E 2003, The theory and practice of workplace learning in the adoption of integrated pest management by tropical fruit growers in Thailand, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 15(2), p. 53 – 62 Black, R 2003, Organizational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success, London, UK, p. 67-89 Cummings, T & Worley, C 2005, Organization Development and Change, 8th Ed., Thomson South-Western, USA, p. 45-76 Elmer, H 1999, Spirituality in the workplace, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12(4), p. 280 – 292 Gareth, M 1997, Images of Organization, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, p. 256-65 Jessica, L and Angeline, C 2009, Workplace learning: the roles of knowledge accessibility and management, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21(4), p. 347 – 364 Keith, G 2005, the Sociology of Work: Introduction, Polity Press: Cambridge, p. 110-150 Klaus-Peter, S 2005, learning in complex organizations as practicing and reflecting: A model development and application from a theory of practice perspective, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17(8), pp.493 – 507 Michael, A 2002, Choice Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, p. 98-105 Papa, M 2008, Organizational Communication Perspectives and Trends (4th Ed.), Sage Publications, p. 78-82 Roderick, M 2000, Social Partnership at Work: Workplace Relations in Post-unification Germany, Employee Relations, 22(4), p. 423 – 428 Tony, M 2009, Interpersonal influence in the workplace: influencing behavior and 360-degree assessments, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 41(5), p. 258 – 269 Read More