discussion

Week 1-2 Seminar Paper

Christopher Harmon

Walden University

Abstract

This paper describes a paradigm shift in business management, which has occurred between the 20th and 21st centuries. Cognitive theory, social construction of reality, critical management studies, and stakeholder theory are briefly discussed as they relate to this shift. Finally, these theories are discussed as they relate to needs theory and research of needs theory.

Week 1 Seminar Paper

A paradigm shift is discussed, which has occurred between the 20th and 21st centuries, and this indicated that managerial schemes would benefit from change. Technology and globalization have created change, but managerial schemes and applications remain steadfast (in many instances); this seems counterproductive. Cognitive developments have proven successful in describing how people define social norms, how behavior relates to cognition, and how behavior is affected by perceived societal expectations. Similarly, social construction of reality provides clarity on group dynamics and culture. Alignment of these paradigms is discussed in this paper. In order to answer important ‘so what’ questions, I have provided a digression into the relevance these articles have on my research topic. One component of that research is needs theory, which is relevant to CMS, cognition, and SCR. This is intended to be informational, debatable, and illustrative. In the months that come, these questions may serve to upend some of the important questions that pertain to needs theory and my research. It is my hope that group members will find ample material to refute, bolster, and otherwise use for their responses. While the value of scholarly writing is important to me, the goal of generating meaningful discourse supersedes this demand. Finally, stakeholder theory is given attention. The divergence of shareholder theory and stakeholder theory illustrate the value of adopting a larger set of domains to validate, or measure, organizational success. Stakeholder theory has been useful in corporate social responsibility, for example. The collective theories and paradigms in this paper are found to resonate. They indicate that better models and theories are needed for business management: they need to reflect complexity, provide ease of application, be adaptable, and be amenable to scholarly research.

Paradigm Shift

Any practical review of the articles should address the paradigmatic shift in conventional wisdoms that has occurred in the past century. As posited by Harvey and Buckley (2002), the conventional wisdoms of the 20th century have become partially (or even primarily) obsolete; this means that scholars and practitioners need to think about business domains in different ways. As an example of this shift, Motoyama and Hui (2015) found a paradoxical relation between business climate perceptions and rankings of the business climate, and concluded that business owners provide the best assessment of the overall climate (and that state rankings are poor indicators, at best). These changes are temporal; in the past, state rankings were localized and the exchanges between business-employee were long-term (Harvey & Buckley, 2002). This has changed, due to a rise in employee turnover, which is partially dependent upon employee-to-employee and employee-to-employer cohesion (Dixon & Hart, 2010). Employee demands have changed and businesses have been impacted by globalization (Harvey & Buckley, 2002). Virtual influences are also significant, along with economic fluctuations, political restructuring, and social reforms. Considering all these facts, the effects of change have clearly accumulated in the last century, while the foundations of managerial science have remained the same. In order for managerial scientists to accelerate learning, it is important to change cognitive processes and begin thinking about business domains differently.

Cognitive Developments and SCR

The insistence that cognitive processes govern social development is an old one, discussed by Marx as early as 1845 (Baker, Thorne, & Eslinger, 2006); in language arts, these are fundamental constructs that are arguably as old as written language. The social construction of reality (SCR) paradigm envelopes this concept as it relates to cognitive development of social norms and cultures; it is also closely associated with cognitive science and sociology (Baker et al., 2006). An application of SCR is “neo-institutionalism”, which is the adaption of SCR to generalize structures of social organizations; similarly, the “cognitive paradigm” involves application of theory using cognitive pretenses to explain behavior (Baker et al., 2006, p. 3). In an ambitious undertaking, Baker et al. (2006) are rigorously integrating the SCR paradigm and the cognitive paradigm: first by generalizing how SCR paradigm is used for research of neo-institutionalism, second by itemizing the ideas of SCR, third by itemizing findings of the cognitive paradigm, and finally they propose “integration and possibilities” (p. 3). This work appears to be progressively accumulating, but is not complete.

The cognitive paradigm serves to inform social scientists on how cognitive processes are shaped. Perhaps SCR can inform social scientists on the influence that social constructs have on cognitive processes. It seems reasonable to deduce that leader cognition can influence culture, exhibiting at least a partial affluence on the social construct; in the same way that leader emergence has been demonstrated to influence team culture (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005), resulting in the delivery of innovative social change. In other words, cognitive processes are theoretically influential on social construction; Hogan and Kaiser (2005) call this “a tide running in human affairs” (p. 170). Also, cultural norms influence the behavior of managers and leaders, which exhibits the influence of social construction on cognitive processes, because this influence explains why the behavior was evinced; this is called ‘construal level mindset’ (van Houwelingen, van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2015). While these examples serve only to describe a small slice of these paradigms, it becomes evident that social scientists have been empowered by each one. Alignment of these paradigms has great potential.

Critical Management Studies

Like the mental models and personal mastery that Senge (2006) espouses, it is evident that cognition theory serves to inform managers and leaders (Salas et al., 2005). The complexity of human action and thought requires a dynamic model. However, many models, such as behavior theory, have only served to fill limited domains. A more comprehensive analysis, of a larger set of successful management criteria, is emerging; not only through cognitive theory and SCR, but through many other management theories including critical management studies and stakeholder theory.

Critical management studies (CMS) aims to produce better managers through micro-emancipation; that is to say, managers that are free of negative, exploitative behaviors (Klikauer, 2015; Adler, Forbes, & Willmott, 2007). CMS has, at its core, the constructs of critical theory, which aims to “end domination as a pathway to emancipation” (Klikauer, 2015, p. 198). Through alignment of CMS and critical theory, practitioners are interested in affecting positive social change, which is radical in nature because these theorists espouse ideals that challenge existing social constructs: “capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism, and so forth – that condition local action and conventional wisdom,” (Adler et al., 2007, p. 120).

Intrigue: A Tie-in to my Research

To digress, I would make an epistemological intrusion – I contend that leadership, which is often defined as reliant upon followership (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994), can be studied in exclusion of followers and may even be exhibited without direct influence to a follower. This is because it involves a cognitive process, which is an unobservable plane, but is nevertheless part of an individual’s social construct; it is a perception. Consider what happens when employees are moved to silence by abusive leadership (Xu, Loi, & Lam, 2015); although a leader has been rendered ineffective through silence, I would argue that leadership qualities have still been exhibited. Within the parameters of CMS and critical theory, I have found a theoretical construct that allows me to challenge conventional wisdom; namely, that a leader necessarily has a follower. (This may also be called passive leadership, but passive leadership isn’t aligned with my argument.)

Studying this circumstance does more than inform researchers on the effects of silence on group output or causation. This can actually reveal leadership qualities and may reveal higher-level thinking; in silence, a person might have shifted a focus on need from one level to the next; perhaps social need to self-esteem, which is traditionally an unexpected ascension (Liu & Arendt, 2016). Adding to this, Adler et al. (2007) positioned needs theory as instrumental in CMS, which becomes illustrative. In other words, the decision to be silent is an action that a leader may choose and an action that entails specific reasoning. It may even be measureable using a work motive scale (Liu & Arendt, 2016). Also, the ascension of need is representative of self-awareness – if abusive leadership impedes someone’s need, is that need necessarily suspended or compromised? Along these lines of thought, the insistence that group effectiveness is achieved through elaborate communication might actually impede self-awareness, because it inhibits self-reflection and, much more importantly, place introverts at a particular disadvantage. In fact, a quiet person embodies many of the qualities of CMS. Such a person might defy normative thinking. Through silence, a person is resistant to group think, avoids trends and fads (Harvey & Buckley, 2002), is both stoic and reflective, and gains the attention of leaders (not always, but this has occurred; for example, the Supreme Court judge, Clarence Thomas, could reasonably be characterized in this way). This attention may not be positive, but nevertheless is observed by people in proximity of the person.

The insistence that teamwork is more effective can be debated herein. Through individuality a system’s output might be increased, or even maximized. Finally, a leader exerts influence over self – is this a form of self-leadership? Hogan and Kaiser posit that, “leadership is an adaptive tool for individual and group survival,” (p. 170) and this resonates with a long-term assessment. Is it possible for leadership to operate in the absence of followers? Hogan and Kaiser (2005) have defined it otherwise (see also Hogan et al., 1994). However, situationally a member that is silent exhibits no positive influence, but from both temporal and internal considerations, the influence may be profoundly meaningful. The conclusion, as stated by Adler et al. (2007), is that CMS has the potential to radically change an epistemological viewpoint. (Yes, a better example is the far-reaching influence that lean manufacturing has had on the manufacturing industry, but those have already been exhausted in my personal studies. CMS will usurp those benefits and highlight the inherit failings of that system, also.)

Stakeholder Theory

Parmar et al. (2010) contrasted stakeholder theory and shareholder theory, highlighting the differences in resource allocation: stakeholder theory espouses that stakeholders are benefited by operations, processes, and resource allocation, while shareholders are only metered by the resource allocation. This inclusion of operations and processes is important because it insists leaders consider not only the financial allocation of resources, but also the influences that result from making business decisions on the stakeholders. Corporate social responsibility makes use of stakeholder theory to emphasize the benefit, as well as ethical practicality, or considering all stakeholders when making business decisions (Parmar et al., 2010). The outputs should be measurable outputs, but not restricted to financial considerations alone, nor should they consider only moral/ethical concerns (Harrison & Wicks, 2013).

This is an example of the differences between leadership and management. While shareholder theory exhibits some leadership qualities, the primary reliance on financial indicators is a managerial scheme. Contrarily, the use of shareholder theory involves more than financial prowess; it entails alignment of the idiosyncrasies, which are situational and complex (Ketokivi & Mahoney, 2016), in order to achieve the highest benefit and value for the system. It is noteworthy that stakeholder theory involves more than a moral obligation to members – it also involves optimizing the system for improved performance (Parmar et al., 2010); by meeting the needs of members, output should be improved overall (von Rueden and van Vugt, 2015), possibly in unexpected ways.

Globalization and technological advancements, in the 20th and 21st centuries, have caused a shift in paradigm (or emergence of a new paradigm). While managerial schemes and theories have remained steadfast, these changes have effected business operations. This urges practitioners and scholars to think differently about business management. Cognitive developments have proven successful, because the help people identify social norms and causes for behavior. A similar construct, the social construction of reality, has identified group dynamics and culture as influential on organizational function. Alignment of cognitive developments and social construction of reality is promising. In order to answer important ‘so what’ questions, this paper aligned topics with my own research interests: in relation to needs theory, cognition helps describe how people think or perceive needs, critical management studies informs that research on different way of relating needs and group dynamics, and social construction of reality demonstrates the import of social norms on needs perception. In the months that come, these topics may serve to upend some of the important questions that pertain to needs theory and my research. Finally, the divergence of shareholder theory and stakeholder theory illustrate the value of adopting a larger set of domains to validate, or measure, organizational success. The collective theories and paradigms in this paper were found to resonate. They indicate that better models and theories are needed for business management: they need to reflect complexity, provide ease of application, be adaptable, and be amenable to scholarly research.

References

Adler, P. S., Forbes, L. C., & Willmott, H. (2007). Critical management studies. The Academy of

Management Annals, 1, 119–179. Retrieved from Business Source Complete. Baker, D. P., Thorne, S., Gamson, D., & Blair, C. (2006, August 11). Cognition, culture, and

institutions: Affinities within the social construction of reality. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Conference in Montreal, Canada.

Dixon, M. L., & Hart, L. K. (2010). The impact of Path-Goal leadership styles on work group

effectiveness and turnover intention. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 52-69.

Retrieved from the Business Source Complete database.

Harvey, M., & Buckley, M. R. (2002). Assessing the "conventional wisdoms" of management

for the 21st century organization. Organizational Dynamics, 30(4), 368-378. Retrieved from Science Direct.

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General

Psychology, 9(2), 169-180. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169

Kilkauer, T. (2015). Critical management studies and critical theory: A review. Capital & Class,

39(2), 197-220. doi: 10.1177/0309816815581773

Liu, Y., & Arendt, S. W. (2016). Development and validation of a work motive measurement

scale. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(4), 1-26. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2014-0091

Motoyama, Y., & Hui, I. (2015). How do business owners perceive the state business climate?

Using hierarchical models to examine the business climate perceptions, state rankings, and tax rates. Economic Development Quarterly. Aug2015, Vol. 29(3), 262-274. doi: 10.1177/0891242415589025.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a ‘big five’ in teamwork? Small Group

Research, 36(5), 555-599. doi: 10.1177/1046496405277134

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New

York, NY: Doubleday.

Van Houwelingen, G. G., Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2015). Getting it done and getting it

right: Leader disciplinary reactions to Followers’ moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset. Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 878-891. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.06.007.

Von Rueden, C. & Van Vugt, M. (2015). Leadership in small-scale societies: Some implications

for theory, research, and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 978-990. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.004

Xu, A., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and

leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763-774. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.002