Neoliberalism

2019 – values of individual liberty and freedom as basis for the operation of business organization in an
economy : opponents : this results in social Darwinism

How social Darwinism operates in modern day organization

social Darwinism, the theory that human groups and races are subject to the same laws of
natural selection as Charles Darwin perceived in plants and animals .

Social Darwinists believe in “survival of the fittest”—the idea that

certain people become powerful in society because they are innately
better
2018 – organizational decision makers increasingly promote neoliberal work practices : implications on
employees and organizations

2021 – how we interpret, live in and understand our present day organizations – neoliberalism –
hegemonic

Theorizing

Marxism

Karl Marx, a philosopher, economist, and revolutionary activist who died a century and a quarter ago

it is obvious that organizations today share many fundamental features with those Marx saw taking
shape in his time. In particular, we still live with a basically capitalist form of society and enterprise

Marxist sociology and organization studies are characterized by their insistence that the relations of
production and the resulting class structure constitute the primary axis of social differentiation,
determining the broad pattern of economic opportunity, education and health conditions, and political
orientations

Capitalism as a mode of production is distinguished by the centrality of commodity production (see

Foley 1986 for a particularly clear exposition of Marx’s theory). A commodity is a product (good or
service) produced for sale rather than use— a ‘contradictory unity’, Marx says, of exchange-value (the
commodity’s capacity to command other products and money in exchange) and use-value (its capacity
to satisfy a need or desire). Capitalism emerges from small-scale commodity production when labor too
becomes a commodity. This happens through a process of violent dispossession that deprives workers of
alternative ways to access means of consumption or production, and that thus forces workers to
exchange their capacity to work for a wage as if this creative capacity too were a commodity

It is important to recognize that Marx viewed the structure of

society in relation to its major classes, and the struggle between
them as the engine of change in this structure. His was no
equilibrium or consensus theory. Conflict was not deviational
within society's structure, nor were classes functional elements
maintaining the system. The structure itself was a derivative of
and ingredient in the struggle of classes. His was a conflict view
of modem (nineteenth century) society.

The key to understanding Marx is his class definition. 1 A class is

defined by the ownership of property. Such ownership vests a
person with the power to exclude others from the property and to
use it for personal purposes. In relation to property there are
three great classes of society: the bourgeoisie (who own the
means of production such as machinery and factory buildings, and
whose source of income is profit), landowners (whose income is
rent), and the proletariat (who own their labor and sell it for a
wage).

Class thus is determined by property, not by income or status.

These are determined by distribution and consumption, which
itself ultimately reflects the production and power relations of
classes. The social conditions of bourgeoisie production are
defined by bourgeois property. Class is therefore a theoretical and
formal relationship among individuals.

The force transforming latent class membership into a struggle of

classes is class interest. Out of similar class situations, individuals
come to act similarly. They develop a mutual dependence, a
community, a shared interest interrelated with a common income
of profit or of wages. From this common interest classes are
formed, and for Marx, individuals form classes to the extent that
their interests engage them in a struggle with the opposite class.

At first, the interests associated with land ownership and rent are
different from those of the bourgeoisie. But as society matures,
capital (i.e., the property of production) and land ownership
merge, as do the interests of landowners and bourgeoisie. Finally
the relation of production, the natural opposition between
proletariat and bourgeoisie, determines all other activities.

As Marx saw the development of class conflict, the struggle

between classes was initially confined to individual factories.
Eventually, given the maturing of capitalism, the growing
disparity between life conditions of bourgeoisie and proletariat,
and the increasing homogenization within each class, individual
struggles become generalized to coalitions across factories.
Increasingly class conflict is manifested at the societal level. Class
consciousness is increased, common interests and policies are
organized, and the use of and struggle for political power occurs.
Classes become political forces.

The distribution of political power is determined by power over

production (i.e., capital). Capital confers political power, which
the bourgeois class uses to legitimatize and protect their property
and consequent social relations. Class relations are political, and
in the mature capitalist society, the state's business is that of the
bourgeoisie. Moreover, the intellectual basis of state rule, the
ideas justifying the use of state power and its distribution, are
those of the ruling class. The intellectual-social culture is merely a
superstructure resting on the relation of production, on ownership
of the means of production.

Finally, the division between classes will widen and the condition
of the exploited worker will deteriorate so badly that social
structure collapses: the class struggle is transformed into a
proletarian revolution. The workers' triumph will eliminate the
basis of class division in property through public ownership of the
means of production. With the basis of classes thus wiped away, a
classless society will ensue (by definition), and since political
power to protect the bourgeoisie against the workers is
unnecessary, political authority and the state will wither away.

Overall, there are six elements in Marx's view of class conflict.

 Classes are authority relationships based on property

ownership.
 A class defines groupings of individuals with shared life
situations, thus interests.
 Classes are naturally antagonistic by virtue of their interests.
  Imminent within modern society is the growth of two
antagonistic classes and their struggle, which eventually
absorbs all social relations.
 Political organization and Power is an instrumentality of
class struggle, and reigning ideas are its reflection.
 Structural change is a consequence of the class struggle.

Marx's emphasis on class conflict as constituting the dynamics of

social change, his awareness that change was not random but the
outcome of a conflict of interests, and his view of social relations
as based on power were contributions of the first magnitude.
However, time and history have invalidated many of his
assumptions and predictions. Capitalist ownership and control of
production have been separated. Joint stock companies forming
most of the industrial sector are now almost wholly operated by
non-capital-owning managers. Workers have not grown
homogeneous but are divided and subdivided into different skill
groups. Class stability has been undercut by the development of a
large middle class and considerable social mobility. Rather than
increasing extremes of wealth and poverty, there has been a
social leveling and an increasing emphasis on social justice. And
finally, bourgeois political power has progressively weakened
with growth in worker oriented legislation and of labor-oriented
parties, and with a narrowing of the rights and privileges of
capital ownership. Most important, the severest manifestation of
conflict between workers and capitalist--the strike--has been
institutionalized through collective bargaining legislation and the
legalization of strikes.

These historical events and trends notwithstanding, the

sociological outlines of Marx's approach have much value. His
emphasis on conflict, on classes, on their relations to the state,
and on social change was a powerful perspective that should not
be discarded. The spirit, if not the substance, of his theory is
worth developing.
The Functionalist Paradigm
(Structural Functionalism)
The Functionalist paradigm describes society as stable and describes all of the various
mechanisms that maintain social stability. Functionalism argues that the social structure
is responsible for all stability and instability, and that that the social structure is
continuously attempting to maintain social equilibrium (balance) among all of the
components of society. Functionalism argues that a stable society is the best possible
society and any element that helps to maintain that stability must add to the
adaptability (functionality) of society. This is a macro-level paradigm that describes
large-scale processes and large- scale social systems; it is uninterested in individual
behavior.

The Functionalist paradigm does a very good job of explaining the ways in which the
institutions of society (the family, education, religion, law/politics/government, the
economy, medicine, media) work together to create social solidarity (a social contract in
which society as a whole agrees upon the rules of social behavior and agrees, more or
less, to abide by those rules) and to maintain balance in society.

Functionalism, or Structural Functionalism, or the Functionalist paradigm describes the

elements in society that create social stability FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF
PEOPLE. This paradigm, like the Conflict paradigm, is very interested in the structure of
society and how it impacts people's lives. However, Functionalism sees the social
structure as creating equilibrium or balance. It also describes the various elements of
society that maintain that balance. One of its basic premises is that society is structured
to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Unfortunately, this
perspective ignores minorities and is unable to explain inequality except to say that it
must have a social function—it must make society more adaptable—simply because
inequality has always existed. Functionalism describes, analyzes, and is interested in
any social element that maintains the status quo—keeps things as they are—and
maintains social balance between and among all of the institutions of society (the
family, education, religion, law/politics/government, the economy, medicine, and
media).

The war in Iraqwhich began in 2003, according to the Functionalist paradigm, is being
fought in order to maintain security and stability in the US by keeping terrorism at bay
thousands of miles away.

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack was an act of extreme deviance caused by
anomic conditions (conditions of social chaos when the rules for normative behavior
seem to have disappeared) in the Middle East and among Muslim people throughout
the world. Because of the cultural influence of the American media throughout the
world, and because of the rapidity of social change taking place due to that cultural
influence, the terrorists engaged in an act of deviance based on their belief that they
were acting at the behest of God, and for the good of their own people, that took their
own lives as well as the lives of thousands of others.

The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Socialization

The socialization process is coercive, forcing us to accept to the values and norms of
society.

The values and norms of society are agreed upon by all members of society because
there is a “social contract” in effect which protects us from one another and keeps
society stable and balanced.

People follow and accept the values and norms of society in order to maintain their own
safety as well as maintaining the social order.

The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Paradigm’s Explanation of the Social Structure

The social structure exists in time and space, is objective/external, concrete, coercive.
and relatively static.

Members of society see the social structure as legitimate (acceptable and working
properly) and therefore strive to maintain that social structure. Legitimation
(acceptability) maintains social equilibrium or balance which maintains the status quo.

The structure itself creates consensus.

The social structure is stable

The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Bureaucracies

The bureaucracy exists to serve the needs of society.

The bureaucracy provides for the economic and social needs of a society and helps to
maintain social stability.

The bureaucracy is a major characteristic of large-scale industrial societies.

The bureaucracy is the response to large-scale formal organizations.

The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Deviance

Behaviors are not offensive because they are deviant; they are deviant because they
offend.

Deviance is usually dysfunctional for society and arises from conditions of anomie.

Deviance may be functional for society because it may bring about necessary social
change.

Deviance is integral to human societies. Deviance exists in all societies, and all societies
create institutionalized methods of preventing and punishing deviance.

The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Inequality

Inequality is less widespread than the Conflictualists believe.

Inequality, in general, is functional for society because it engenders competition which

serves as an incentive for people to attempt to rise to the top.

Inequality, overall, is highly dysfunctional for society because it fails to permit large
groups of people from competing for the goods of society.

Inequality is always functional (adaptive) for some segments of society and

dysfunctional (non-adaptive) for others.

The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of the Family

The family creates well-integrated members of society and teaches culture to the new
members of society.

The family provides important ascribed statuses such as social class and ethnicity to
new members.

The family regulates sexual activity.

Family is responsible for social replacement by reproducing new members, to replace its
dying members.

Family gives individuals property rights and also affords the assignment and
maintenance of kinship order.

Families offer material and emotional security and provides care and support for the
individuals who need to be taken care of.

The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Education

Enhances the operation and stability of society by systematically teaching certain
cognitive skills and knowledge, and transmitting these skills and knowledge from one
generation to the next generation.

Education has several manifest and latent functions for society.

Cultural transmission passes culture from one generation to the next and established
social values are taught thoroughly.

EducationUH also serves to enhance social and cultural integration in society by

bringing together people from diverse social backgrounds so that they share
widespread social experiences and thus acquire commonly held societal HUnormsUH,
attitudes and beliefs.

The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Religion

Religion (along with the family and law) serves to legitimate (make acceptable) the
social structure of any given society.

Religion (along with the family and law) helps to maintain social stability and balance by
binding people to the normative aspects of their society.

Religion (along with law) provides a system of behavioral guidelines for society.

Post-Colonial

Post-colonial theory deals with the reading and writing of literature written in previously or currently
colonized countries, or literature written in colonizing countries which deals with colonization or
colonized peoples. It focuses particularly on the way in which literature by the colonizing culture distorts
the experience and realities, and inscribes the inferiority, of the colonized people on literature by
colonized peoples which attempts to articulate their identity and reclaim their past in the face of that
past's inevitable otherness. It can also deal with the way in which literature in colonizing countries
appropriates the language, images, scenes, traditions and so forth of colonized countries. This page
addresses some of the complexities of the post-colonial situation, in terms of the writing and reading
situation of the colonized people, and of the colonizing people.

Modern organizations Postmodern organizations

Mission, strategy, and

Producer-led specialization Customer-led diffusion
goals
 Hierarchy
Flat, lean, internal market
Bureaucracy
Heterarchy PNetworks,
Structures
meshworks Matrix, project
Functions
teams Brand management
Product management

Downsizing, glocalization,
Orientation to size Growth-driven, mergers
alliances

Decision making Centralized, determinist Devolved, collaborative

Planning orientation Short-term calculability Long-term sustainability

Relation to market Unresponsive Responsive/flexible

Deregulated or internally
Relation to state Externally regulated
regulated

Financial, economic, profit

Relation to stakeholders Ethical, socially conscious
maximization

Speed/information/managing
Resources/competencies/
Mode of competition
economies of scale
knowledge

Means of production Differentiated/dedicated Dedifferentiated/dededicated

Means of delivery/
Dedifferentiated/standardized Differentiated/customized
consumption

Mode of operation Mass production Fordism Mass customization Toyotism

Mode of communication Vertical Horizontal, network

IT-led and peer-led

Means of control Supervisory micro-management
surveillance

Panoptic control Chimerical control

Cultural orientation Exchange, social, material Symbolic, virtual

Leader archetype Heroic Post-heroic

Worker archetype Mass production worker Knowledge worker

Employee relations Collective, dialectical, mistrust Polyphonic, dialogical, trust

Individually based, collectively Collectively based,

Reward systems
negotiated individually negotiated

Skill formation Deskilling, inflexible Multiskilling, flexible

Jobs Simple Complex

Roles and accountability Rule governed Empowered

Managers Supervisors Coaches

Performance achievement Measured activities Negotiated key results

Careers Planned, internal capital Portfolio, social capital

Organization theory

Organization Theory is  a set of theories that explain and help us understand how organizations
function. Organizations and people within organizations are the focus of organization theory.
Organization theories could focus on the total organization, groups of employees such as
departments or divisions, or on individual employees. These theories offer ideas, models, and
tools to design and manage effective organizations. These theories can help us understand the
interconnections between different parts of an organization and manage the complexity of
organizations.

An important function of organization theory is that it provides a structured way to talk

about organizations, as units and the subunits, groups, and individuals who work within
an organization. It can help managers better achieve organizational goals. It can help
employees improve their work environment, leverage opportunities to assert more
authority in decision-making processes, and empower themselves. Depending on how
scientists and practitioners define and study organizations (either as a noun or a verb),
theories produce different insights. In this way, organization theory provides
a  systematic pathway to understand and talk about organizations.

Hatch (2018) classifies all these theories into three major categories.

Modernist  theoretical perspective theories look for causal explanations to explain a

phenomenon of interest. The basic assumption that guides this type of theory building
is objective ontology and positivist epistemology. They treat organizations as real
entities (nouns) and believe that organizations are driven by norms of rationality.

On the other hand, some theories treat organizations as ongoing processes. Governed
by subjective ontology and interpretivist epistemology, symbolic  perspective theories  try
to understand human behavior within the organizational context. These theories focus
on processes that uncover how life unfolds within an organization.

The third category of theories study organizations as a site of power relations. That is,
these theories study how some narratives overpower and empower some people while
suppressing others. These theories take a critical view of management practices by
encouraging reflexivity and awareness of ethical and moral implications of managing,
theorizing, and organizing. There are theories about almost every aspect of
organizations. These include theories about the structure (social and physical) of the
organization, people, effectiveness of teams, leadership, organizational change,
organizational innovation, management strategy, efficiency, and more. Some well-
known organization theories are listed below.

1. Organization Contingency Theory

2. Classical Management Theory
3. Resource Dependency Theory
4. Organizational Structure
5. Organizational Culture
6. Bounded rationality and Decision making
7. Bureaucratic Theory
 8. Charismatic Theory of Leadership
9. Critical Theory of Organizations
10. Communications Theory
11. Organizational Empowerment
12. Institutional Theory
13. Stakeholder theory
14. Inter-organizational Network
15. Managerialism
16. Organizational Structure and Design
17. Narrative Theory
18. Systems Theory
19. Sensemaking
20. Social Construction Theory

Glass ceiling
A glass ceiling is a metaphor used to represent an invisible barrier that prevents a given
demographic from rising beyond a certain level in a hierarchy. The metaphor was first coined by
feminists in reference to barriers in the careers of high-achieving women.

The term "glass ceiling" is a metaphor for the barriers that women and
people of color face when striving to move upward in the workplace. 

"The glass ceiling isn't so much a thing. It's a phenomenon that people
have noticed where women seem to have an easier time entering into
organizations at lower levels, but as they advance to higher levels,
their numbers dwindle," said Rosalind M. Chow, an associate
professor of organizational behavior and theory at the Tepper School
of Business at Carnegie Mellon University.

"So the glass ceiling basically refers to the idea that there is something
holding women back or down from getting into those leadership
positions. This is probably doubly true for women of color," she
added. 

Looking at education attainment levels, women get advanced

degrees at higher rates than men and play a key role in the labor
market. Yet there's a dearth of women in C-suite or other executive
roles. 
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that in 2021, women
made up 29.1% of chief executives in the workforce. And as of
September, the 2021 "Women CEOs in America" report said, there
were 41 female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies — a 10.8% spike from
the previous year. Though that number was a record high, women
CEOs still made up only 8.2% of Fortune 500 companies. 

As for women of color, the report said there were five in CEO roles at
Fortune 500 companies, which was an increase from three in 2020

Understanding the glass-ceiling theory

and effect 
The term "glass ceiling" was coined by the writer and consultant
Marilyn Loden in 1978 at the Women's Exposition in New York. From
1991 to 1996, through The Glass Ceiling Commission, the US
Department of Labor studied the phenomenon and how it affected
women and minorities in the workforce. 

In 1995, the commission found that white men held most management
positions in corporations, and that the workforce was divided, with
women and minorities accessing fewer leadership opportunities. 

"The existence of this invisible barrier significantly puts women like

me at a disadvantage, all things like competence and skills being
equal," said Deborrah Ashley, a marketing strategist, a trainer, and the
founder of Thrivoo, a LinkedIn consulting and training company.
Before starting her company, she spent two decades working in
corporate marketing.

Ashley added: "This is especially true for women of color because

being a woman in the first place has its consequences already. Adding
color to the mix puts us in an even more difficult situation because
when pitted against white women, we are usually considered inferior."

It's not women's lack of talent, skill level, or ambition that prevents
them from accessing further opportunities. There are other factors at
play, such as unconscious bias, that can affect whether women move
up the corporate ladder. 

Chow said that in general, men tended to see great performance in

other men, and women saw the same in other women. But when a
group of men evaluate a woman's performance, they're less likely to
see her as a "sure bet" or recognize her merits. 

"People who are evaluating workers have some inherent biases

themselves and are less likely to recognize great talent in women of
color," Chow said.

Homi Bhabha’s Concept of Hybridity

One of the most widely employed and most disputed terms in postcolonial
theory, hybridity commonly refers to the creation of new transcultural forms
within the contact zone produced by colonization. As used in horticulture, the
term refers to the cross-breeding of two species by grafting or cross-pollination
to form a third, ‘hybrid’ species. Hybridization takes many forms:linguistic,
cultural,political, racial, etc. Linguistic examples include pidgin and creole
languages, and these echo the foundational use of the term by the linguist and
cultural theorist Mikhail Bakhtin,who used it to suggest the disruptive and
transfiguring power of multivocal language situations and, by extension, of
multivocal narratives. The idea of a polyphony of voices in society is implied
also in Bakhtin’s idea of the carnivalesque, which emerged in the Middle Ages
when ‘a boundless world of humorous forms and manifestations opposed the
official and serious tone of medieval ecclesiastical and feudal culture’ (Holquist
1984: 4).
The term ‘hybridity’ has been most recently associated with the work of Homi
K. Bhabha, whose analysis of colonizer/colonized relations stresses their
interdependence and the mutual construction of their subjectivities (see mimicry
and ambivalence). Bhabha contends that all cultural statements and systems are
constructed in a space that he calls the ‘Third Space of enunciation’ (1994:37).
Cultural identity always emerges in this contradictory and ambivalent
space,which for Bhabha makes the claim to a hierarchical ‘purity’of cultures
untenable. For him, the recognition of this ambivalent space of cultural identity
may help us to overcome the exoticism of cultural diversity in favour of the
recognition of an empowering hybridity within which cultural difference may
operate:

It is significant that the productive capacities of this Third Space have a colonial
or postcolonial provenance. For a willingness to descend into that alien
territory . . . may open the way to conceptualizing an international culture, based
not on the exoticism of multiculturalism or the diversity of cultures,but on the
inscription and articulation of culture’s hybridity. (Bhabha 1994: 38)

It is the ‘in-between’ space that carries the burden and meaning of culture, and
this is what makes the notion of hybridity so important. Hybridity has frequently
been used in post-colonial discourse to mean simply cross-cultural ‘exchange’.
This use of the term has been widely criticized, since it usually implies negating
and neglecting the imbalance and inequality of the power relations it references.
By stressing the transformative cultural, linguistic and political impacts on both
the colonized and the colonizer, it has been regarded as replicating
assimilationist policies by masking or ‘whitewashing’ cultural differences.