Page 146 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh08v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:24 PM Page 129

Organizations and rationality
Finally, when examining a particular institution over a period of time we should
be concerned to identify, and then understand, periods during which the domi-
nating rationality, ordering decisions and action in the institution are changed.
Such change would represent a watershed in the ‘life’ of the institution con-
cerned. Here would be a significant period in which to study the institution and
its relations to a wider society.
If all this is accepted how do we proceed? In essence we must search for the
frames of reference which make intelligible the choices and decisions of people
within a given institution. A particular ‘rationality’ comprises ‘rules of action’
that are deemed suitable for given circumstances. Thus our approaches require us
to observe the choices that people make, and the reasons they give for making
them over long periods of time, examining many of them in order to discern the
‘rules of action’ and ‘frames of reference’ in use.
Important consequences flow from the existence of alternative sources of
rationality which people use to establish and maintain order as circumstances
change. Each apparently rational strategy for ‘getting things done’, for maintain-
ing order, for ensuring that employees work hard, are loyal and committed,
obey instructions, and so on, has counter-rational consequences associated with
it – that is to say, counter-rational viewed from the perspective of the particular
rationality in use.

An example: organization and counter-rational behaviour
Argyris (1982) provides us with a good example of this situation. A group of sen-
ior university administrators attending an executive course were examining a
case study on a particular college which included a set of recommendations for
the future of that college, produced by a working group of senior academics and
administrators from the college. The working group had been asked for ‘concrete
recommendations’. The course members were asked to evaluate these recom-
mendations. Criticizing the recommendations, course members expressed the
view that the recommendations were vague and cliché ridden, the typical output
of a committee which had not been well briefed. Such an evaluation of working

groups, working parties or committees is not uncommon. Argyris suggests that it
was based on several assumptions about organization and management.
The first is that giving people specific goals will lead them to actions which are
more relevant and specific (in this case produce more specific recommendations).
The second is that goals will motivate people or, if not, will at least make it eas-
ier to confront them on the quality of their performance. Finally, it is assumed
that effective control of performance requires objective monitoring of perform-
ance. Underlying these assumptions is the fear that people will not obey, follow
the rules, perform their tasks. Many managers see rules, regulations, systematic
procedures, objective performance monitoring and control as the basis for order.
So far so good! But implicit in this is the belief that rules, systems, monitoring
and control cannot in themselves bring about consequences that are counter-
productive to order, that obstruct progress, that make it harder to ‘get things
done’. Yet we all know this to be false. When we think of bureaucracy, we tend
also to think of ‘red tape’.

129