Transition from bureaucratic to post bureaucratic era

Power is loosely understood as one’s ability to influence the actions of others (Kelly & Tazbir, 2014). However, it is important to note that power remains independent from authority. Authority over others, as explained by Gonclaves (2013), is a formal responsibility that accompanies a title or position. While one may have administrative authority over an employee, they may not necessarily possess the ability to influence the person’s behavior. Power is derived from “expertise, legitimacy, reference (charisma), reward and coercion, or connection” (Kelly & Tazbir, 2014, p. 189). These sources of power are a combination of both purposeful and inherent behaviors that allow one to exercise influence over others (Kelly & Tazbir, 2014). To be most

The amount of legitimate power someone has depends on the importance of the position she or he occupies and the willingness to grant authority to the person in that position. The benefits of this type of power are that incorporates weight of the entire organization, effective for gaining obedience, helps large organizations function effectively. The costs are that lowers follower task performance, lowers follower task satisfaction, and may become less effective overtime.

In this essay about managing culture in the post-bureaucratic era, I am going to argue how the practices of managing culture have changed in this era and how they differentiate oneself from the bureaucratic era. Furthermore I describe the cultural influences especially in organizations and how the importance of those influences changed over the time. In the first section I am going to explain the content of managing organization culture to get a first insight in the topic and to express the knowledge about the influences of the culture in an organization. In the next chapter I separate between two perspectives of the cultural organizations and explain which of the both are relevant for the assignment question. The next step of my

In this essay, I am going to argue that the contextual changes within organizations require innovative ways of managing corporate cultures, particularly seen in the changes in post-bureaucratic eras. I shall illustrate the contextual importance of managing cultures and the ethical considerations that arise from the manipulation of culture. In Section One, I shall demonstrate the management of cultures within the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic eras, referencing Bolin & Harenstam (2008), Brewis (2007) and McKenna, Garcia‐Lorenzo & Bridgman (2010) research findings. By particularly exploring Rosen (1988) and Van Maanen (1991) individual organizational context for section two, I intend to present the different practices of managing cultures

Power is not always considered evil and is often contained within the position of authority. Power in an organization is the ability to perform an act they want done. The essence of power is to control the behavior of others and without some form of connection this cannot be done. In organizations leadership power stems from the ability to combine positional and personal powers. Power and politics are both dynamic concepts and are a function of interaction between the different elements in the organization. Unfortunately, politics and power is a game that most employees in the organization must learn to deal with. Politics will play a part in the organization as long as people are involved. Organizational politics reduce performance, increase the turnover rate and decrease job satisfaction the workforce. The mention of politics in the workplace and people immediately think of malicious actions that are carried out by self serving people. However power and politics can bring about positive improvement and progress. Perception separates whether the use of power and politics is viewed as positive or negative. In leadership, power and influence is the theme that has been constantly developing over time.

In addition to power established because of organizational hierarchy or role, power is also established based on the level of influence or status one holds in an organization (Anichich, Fast, Halevy, Galinsky, 2016). “Status is the outcome of an evaluation of attributes that produce differences in respect and prominence” (Ketner et al, 2003 p. 266) They co-exists but are not co-dependent on each other. It’s possible to have status without power and power without status (Ketner et al, 2003). Whether one’s control comes through status or positional power, lauding control or significant influence over another inevitably leads to conflict.

After reading the Power and Relationships section, I have to agree with the author that power works, to a certain extent, until it starts to damage relationships. I have seen this first hand at my internship site. One of the supervisors got promoted to assistant manager and has been taking advantage of the position. After a month or so, I have noticed that employees no longer confide in her and prefer to keep themselves at a distance. In addition, the environment has become very negative that I don’t even want to be there at times. This shows that power works to get things done but damages the relationship with others in the long run.

In 1960 John R. P French and Bertram Raven identified five bases of power accessible to managers (Victor, 2015). These five sources of power are legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, and referent (Jones & George, 2015, p. 435). Legitimate power not with the person; is granted to the position held in an organization’s hierarchy. Reward power is gained by rewarding subordinates for jobs well done, however the rewards must the expectancy of subordinates or the power ultimately fails. Coercive power is based on using fear to intimidate subordinates to carry out tasks. Expert power is based in the distinct knowledge, skills, and expertise that a leader possesses. Referent power is a function of the personal characteristics of leader that result

Power and authority are different concepts; however, the terms function reciprocally in the bureaucratic structure of an organization. The organization’s power is centered at the top and the authority flows from the top down through ordered levels of management: from senior executives to regional managers to departmental managers and supervisors who work with the frontline employees. Authority and control from different levels of hierarchy within a bureaucratic structure are defining to the entire purpose of the organization. All departments have organizational charts, and everyone understands who is in charge and their responsibilities. Job descriptions are detailed and specialized and management monitors outcomes, which in turn

In this essay, I intend to argue that from a time of structured bureaucracy to an aeon of flexibility and the stripping down of hierarchical order, the principles in managing culture have evolved. Nevertheless, as practices have changed, the results are analogous in that culture is developed in order to control an organisation. Organisation culture is the deep, normal assumptions, beliefs, and shared values that delineate organizational membership (Clegg et. al. 2011). I altercate that an enjoyable and gratifying culture has become a foundation for individual satisfaction and contentment, ultimately leading to workplace efficiency and productivity. I will validate this in Section one by reconnoitering on Fredrickson (2003) and comparing it to Sudnow (1967). Conversely, a free form culture is still delimited by control and bureaucracy within and this is demonstrated by Rosen (1988) and Parker (1992) in Section two. In the final section, with Ojo (2010), I will exemplify how in the post-bureaucratic period, there is an imperative liaison between organisation culture and performance.

It is important for managers to understand the sources of power and influence as they must rely upon the cooperation of subordinates in order to be successful. Strong managers rely upon more than just authority they also use leadership skills and power to obtain the most productivity from their staff. According to French and Raven (1959) there are five sources of power. Referent power seems to be the most influential and the least affected by change. To quote Paul Argenti,

Power and influence have long been ingrained into the framework of leadership. They are the dynamic duo that have been heavily utilized by all leaders throughout history. Although power is primarily associated with the leader, it’s imperative that we view power as a function of the leader, the follower, and the situation (Hughes et. al, 2009, p. 135) . In the context of leadership, Hughes et.al. defines power as the capacity to produce effects on others or the potential to influence others (2009, p.135). There are many examples throughout time that demonstrate the positive and negative influences that power has held over individuals and large groups of people. But where does a leader’s power stem from? The sources of power is an integral part of leadership. This paper will serve to examine the five bases of power as outlined by Raven and French. The primary focus of this paper will be on the development of the five bases of power, the connection between power and oppression, the impact on leadership practice, and the relation to other similar theories.

An organization’s culture governs day to day behavior. This type of power may be seen as a control mechanism, which businesses use to manipulate internal and external perception. Every organization has a set of assumed understandings that must be adopted and implemented by new employees in order for them to be accepted. Conformity to the culture becomes the primary basis for reward by the organization. “The role of culture in influencing employee behavior appears to be increasingly important in today’s workplace, as organizations have widened spans of control, flattened structures, introduced teams, reduced

Have you ever wondered what role politics and power play in organizations? When used effectively they can be compatible in reaching the organizations goals. Power is defined as the ability to get someone to do something you want done or the ability to make things happen in the way you want them. (Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn, Chap. 15). Power is important within organizations because it is the way in which management influences individuals to make things happen. When power and influence combine, most of the time 'politics' become involved in some manner which may pose some problems. Organizational politics is best described as management influenced by self-interest through the use

Power is the type of culture within Company A. The organization is controlled by a key person, Arthur Pitts. The important decisions are made by key person and the staff will try to guess the boss’s thinking. It based on personalities.