The Emerging Organization
Running head: THE EMERGING ORGANIZATION
The Emerging Organization:
Globalization, Spirituality and Cosmopolitanism
Assessor: Robert Silverman, Ph.D.
HOD
Fielding Graduate University
by
Sam Rockwell
Denver, Colorado
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
University Rankings
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Our save-the-student-ebooks!
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The Emerging Organization: Globalization, Spirituality, and Cosmopolitanism, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Philosophy
The impact of globalization on organizations, the role of spirituality in the workplace, and the emergence of a cosmopolitan ethic. The author discusses the need for organizations to balance globalization with authentic spiritual ideals and local perspectives, and the potential benefits of examining organizational virtues and moral cosmopolitanism.
What you will learn
- What is the impact of globalization on organizations?
- What is the role of spirituality in organizations?
- Why emphasize moral cosmopolitanism in organizations?
- Is there an emergent cosmopolitan ethic in organizations?
- How can spirituality in the workplace be empirically examined?
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
2016/2017
1 / 29
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Related documents
Partial preview of the text
Download The Emerging Organization: Globalization, Spirituality, and Cosmopolitanism and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity!
Running head: THE EMERGING ORGANIZATION
The Emerging Organization: Globalization, Spirituality and Cosmopolitanism Assessor: Robert Silverman, Ph.D. HOD Fielding Graduate University
by Sam Rockwell Denver, Colorado
Abstract The emerging organization grapples with the complexities of a rapidly changing world: What is the impact of globalization on organizations? What is the role of spirituality in organizations? And is there an emergent cosmopolitan ethic, a broader social obligation, of organizations? The emerging organization will in some cases, either because of internal moral conviction or external pressure from stakeholders or constituents, seek to promote conversations that attempt to bridge the competing values inherent in the trends of globalization, spirituality and cosmopolitanism. Globalization, mostly a financial and commercial phenomenon, must be tempered by authentic spiritual ideals; spirituality in the workplace as a research discipline must be pursued with cold-eyed attention to practical outcomes; and cosmopolitanism must be practiced in organizations with a realistic acknowledgement of local as well as global perspectives.
contributed to a vital conversation about the nature of human and organizational behavior. Eric Trist and Fred Emory (Trist, 1978) posited that organizations were not closed social systems but open socio-technical systems in which technology and mechanization could be aligned with the social architecture of the organization to maximize human and technological potential. By arranging the tools around people (by utilizing self-managed teams and flexible job roles) instead of arranging people in highly structured roles around the tools, new paradigms emerged regarding the nature of work design and more efficient and more humane methods were developed to accommodate both human needs and technological innovation. In recent years, the natural sciences have presented insights into the organic aspects of organizations (Wheatley, 1993). What are the new questions and assumptions that will impact organizational theory and what are the factors that may contribute to the formulation of new paradigms? Perhaps as the world becomes smaller and “flatter” (Friedman, 2006) globalization will change the way organizations are conceptualized; perhaps as a counterbalance to the exponential proliferation of technology, the issue of spirituality will assert itself on the organizational landscape even more dramatically; and perhaps as the issues of sustainability become even more pressing, organizations will redefine the bottom line within broader, perhaps more cosmopolitan, considerations. The rising awareness of the systemic nature of our world demands that we acknowledge the interdependence and connectedness of everything and that we conceptualize organizational problems with new lenses.
The themes that arise from all these embryonic questions morph into three pervading ones: What is the impact of globalization on organizations? What is the role of spirituality in organizations? And is there an emergent cosmopolitan ethic, a broader social obligation, of organizations? Each of these emergent questions may seem to address entirely different concerns. The fact of the matter however is that the issues of globalization, spirituality, and universalism are all interconnected and each of them impacts the other. This researcher will not attempt to clearly delineate each of these issues as separate and distinct but will address them with the others in mind. Globalization and Organization Transferable Models and Metaphors The advent of globalization and the specter of what may become a world culture of organization beg the question of whether or not there are universals or “correct” paradigms of organization theory. Most of the research done in organizational studies has been in the context of the western hemisphere. How applicable are these theories in a global and diverse milieu? Does organizational knowledge as we have it have imperialistic qualities? Exporting ideas across geographical and cultural boundaries often wreaks havoc on local culture and practices. Stewart Clegg purports that it is only within a framework of western modernity that the current body of organizational work is comprehended (Clegg, 2006). Within this context, universalism in the realm of organization theory can be applied, but outside of it, the question remains unanswered. It is still an open
approaching organizational theory as “disciplined imagination” (p. 244). This way of thinking about organizational science, at least for this researcher, holds out the most hope for usefulness and ongoing creativity in a global context. A Global Organizational Culture Pheng Cheah, in Cosmopolitanism, suggests that the ideal of an abiding global consciousness is troubled by the persistence of nationalistic interests. Whether the ideal is Kant’s prenationalist cosmopolitanism, Marx’s postnationalist cosmopolitanism or decolonizing socialist nationalism, local and national mores continue to dominate the thinking and actions of organizations (Cheah, 2006). Even contemporary exponents of culture-transcending cosmopolitanism (the networks of global cites, social formations created by migrants, and Habermas’s cosmopolitan democracy) must capitulate to the reoccurring patterns and constructs of national and local culture which often dictate the approach to problems. The dogged preservation of local culture and national identity is discouraging to those who desire to create higher consciousness in regard to environmentalism, equality in trade practices, and global crisis management. On the other hand, the entrenched nature of local culture in organizations is comforting to those who are fearful of the “McDonaldization” of global society (Ritzer, 1993). Weir and Hutching (2005) point out an example of how entrenched culture in organizations can be acknowledged and yet influenced. The Nonaku and Takeuchi model of knowledge management developed in a Japanese cultural context cannot be directly applied to Chinese and Arab organizations because
these cultures have embedded beliefs and customs that inform the way knowledge is shared and the means by which it is processed. The authors suggest that the Japanese model can be utilized by Chinese and Arab organizations but only with modifications. In other words the local culture prevails in the organization but the model can be useful if the “contextual restraints” (p. 89) are understood and taken into consideration. Preliminary work is being done to design measurements and scales to determine the level of acculturation occurring in the global marketplace (Cleveland & Laroche, 2007). In the mind of some researchers it is self-evident that globalization, capitalism, communications, marketing, and “transnational cosmopolitanism” are creating a global consumer culture which is discernibly dissolving national and organizational identities and replacing them with a homogenous one (p. 249). Strategic Response of Organizations to Globalization The immediate and direct effect of globalization on organizations is palpable: the proliferation of choices for consumers and the increased competition inherent in a global market require business organizations to consider their identities in new light. Globalization may force organizations to shift from a traditional organization design created for stability to newer designs created for change. Lawler and Worley (2006) argue that organizations smart enough to anticipate the ever increasing demands of change precipitated by global upheaval and complexity will create organizations “built to change” in three primary ways: strategizing, structuring and creating value. These are the most important features of the flexible organization because these are the components
“Multidimensional organizations require multidimensional information” (Galbraith, 2002, p. 69). Matrix structures allow for faster and more integrated information sharing throughout the organization. Third, organizations built to respond to rapidly changing external environments specialize in creating value. This is achieved by developing an ability to discern what it can do well based on its core competencies and capabilities. Creating value is about knowing the human potential of a particular organization at the current moment. This knowledge is at least as important as product knowledge when it comes to the organization’s ability to change rapidly and appropriately to opportunities and threats. According to Lawler and Worley, strategy, structure and value creation all revolve around one most important core component: identity. Organizational identity is vital because it represents the most stable feature of the organization and in an environment of rapid change, knowing what should not change is crucial. Identity consists of the foundational values, beliefs and behaviors of the organization (Lawler & Worley, p. 27). Spirituality and Organization Spirituality is big business and big in businesses. The question is what precisely constitutes “spirituality” and does it contribute in a measurable way to the bottom line? Globalization and the multicultural nature of emerging organizations make this question even more relevant. Is there a legitimate role for spirituality in organizational life? Is it realistic to assume that an organization
can sanitize itself from spirituality given the pervasiveness of spirituality and religion in the lives of people of all societies? Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2006) define workplace spirituality as, “a framework of organizational values evidenced in the culture that promotes employees’ experience of transcendence through the work process, facilitating their sense of being connected to others in a way that provides feelings of completeness and joy” (p. 13). Ashforth & Pratt (2006) are careful to point out that there is an important distinction between religion and spirituality. They quote Mirvis (1997) who suggests that “religion is about answers…and spirituality is about questions” (Ashforth & Pratt, 2006, p. 94). In the domain of organizational science it is possible to separate religion, which focuses on doctrine and is unverifiable, from values and “spiritual intelligence,” (Paloutzian, 2006) which focuses on demonstrable values and qualities that can be measured and studied in the workplace (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2006). Ashforth and Pratt (2006) delineate three basic dimensions of spirituality in the workplace. The first is transcendence of self , “a connection to something greater than oneself” (p. 93). The second is holism and harmony. “Holism is an integration of the various aspects of oneself into a roughly coherent and consistent self, whereas harmony is the sense that the integration of the various aspects is synergistic and informs one’s behavior” (ibid). The third aspect of spirituality in the workplace is growth , the experience of development and progress at work: “If transcendence leads to connection, and holism and harmony to coherence, then growth leads to completeness” (p. 94).
community, and environmentalism” (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003, p. 14). In contrast, materialists value the accumulation of possessions, security, and control. According to political scientist Ronald Inglehart, in 1970-71, materialists outnumbered postmaterialists by a ratio of 4 to 1; by 1990 that ratio had shifted to 4 to 3 (Inglehart, 1997). This trend as well as others (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003, pp. 14-17; Cameron, Dutton & Quinn, 2003; Dehler and Walsh, 2003) contributes to the idea that more people are looking to their work for meaning and not just money. McGregor (1960) was one of the first to point out that financial remuneration is not always the primary or most important motivator for why people work. It is good for the individual when she is focused on a larger purpose than day-to-day survival and narrow personal concerns. When the goals and values of the individual are consistent with the organization’s goals and values, both benefit (Paloutzian, Emmons, & Keortge, 2003). For example, three-quarters of Americans consider themselves to be environmentalists (Hoffman, 2003). Do these individuals work in environmentally conscious organizations? Are there inherent tensions between the spiritual and ethical viewpoints of the individual and the values of the organization? Many organizations are aware of these realities and questions and are seeking to create stronger emotional, personal, relational, and ethical ties with their workforce. “Data unequivocally suggests that spirituality-based organizational cultures are the most productive and that by maximizing productivity they confer organizational dominance in the marketplace” (Gaicalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003, p. 9; also cf. Reder, 1982).
Spirituality in the Workplace as Science What differentiates spirituality in the workplace as a legitimate science and spirituality in the workplace as faddish or merely anecdotal? The proliferation of organization consultants, popular books, and leadership gurus hocking every imaginable variety of spiritual advice as it relates to organizational life clouds the water. Can legitimate progress be made toward credible new theories in organizational science relating to spirituality in the workplace? What passes for legitimate advancement in the field? There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that spirituality and its effect on organizations can be empirically examined (Gaicalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Lee, Sirgy, Efraty & Siegel, 2003); there is a stream of spirituality in the workplace literature that has a solid philosophical and intellectual base but does not necessarily attempt to be empirical (e.g. Prava & Primeaux, 2004); and then there are amalgamations of faith-based and/or spirituality oriented management and leadership literature that runs the gamut from Depak Chokra to John Maxwell. Literature that seeks to be scientifically sound according to Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003) must concern itself with adequate measurement tools, attention to theoretical development, adequate definitions, and attention to legal matters regarding spirituality in the workplace. To this researcher, the most vital of these concerns is the need to document the impact of spirituality in measurable ways on work processes and outcomes. Once aspects of spirituality can be linked to verifiable behavior at work and standardized tools can be supplied to line managers, executives and
and virtues and does this linkage hold promise for future research regarding workplace spirituality? Can a good organization contribute to making an employee a better person? And what does it look like for an organization to construct and interpret meaning to individuals in the workforce? How do individuals philosophically situate themselves in organizations? “Person-in-Organization” Park and Peterson (2003) have classified positive individual traits that have been developed and have gained consensus from positive psychology scholars (Keyes & Haidt, 2003) and are developing a classification for organizational traits. Their goal is to create a “person-in-organization” profile which will one day help prospective employees find compatible organizations and vice-versa as well as create a classification system for further positive organizational scholarship of all kinds. The research in this area has already proven to be helpful and practical. For instance Cameron (2003) cites three studies correlating organizational virtues including compassion, integrity, forgiveness, trust and optimism with organization metrics including productivity, quality, and employee commitment. The three studies track how various businesses which undergo significant downsizing operations recuperated over time in relation to their “virtues’ index. The results yield interesting but not conclusive data. Generally, those companies high on the virtuousness scale bounced back from downsizing more quickly. The future of research that creates linkages between organizational virtues and performance and organizational
virtues with the employees personal virtues and performance is promising and exciting (Cameron, Dutton, Quinn, Wrzesniewski, 2003). Organizational Virtues and Personal Growth Park and Peterson (2003) speculate that organizations that exhibit the aforementioned virtues reinforce and “enable” (not necessarily cause) virtuous behavior in the lives of individuals in the organization. The authors point out that individuals always have the opportunity to be virtuous regardless of the culture of their organizations, but there is a positive symbiotic relationship that generates and reinforces itself on three dimensions: positive emotion, positive personal traits, and positive institutional traits. Pratt and Ashforth (2003) have created a model that demonstrates that organizations which “infuse meaningfulness” through a dual emphasis on enriching membership (being) while balancing this with equal emphasis on enriching tasks and roles (doing) increase the performance level of their employees and increase job satisfaction and feelings of well-being (p. 315). The point is that when attention is paid to both addressing meaning in the work that is done as well as to the social and physical environment in which work is done can benefit individuals and organizations alike. “Creating meaningfulness is not only a means of increasing performance – it is also an end in itself” (p. 326). Cosmopolitanism and Organization Do issues of environmental sustainability, globalization, consumerism, and fiber-optic communication create the necessary conditions for a moral cosmopolitanism in organizations? Moral cosmopolitanism is a concern for the
concerns itself with ideals common to universalism like human dignity and human rights protected by international law, while going further by emphasizing the importance of creating international consensus for environmental issues and protecting people from the harmful uses of technology (Appiah, 2006: Beck, 2006). Robert Went (2004) argues that financial globalization such as sales, production, and concentration of capital has outrun social justice by an extraordinary degree, and that this “one-dimensional internationalization” must be balanced by a new form of ethical cosmopolitanism. The questions that seem relevant to this researcher are these: Why emphasize moral cosmopolitanism in organizations? Shouldn’t governments and nations be primarily responsible for humanitarian and environmental issues? What does moral cosmopolitanism look like in an organization? Is there an economic or competitive advantage to having a cosmopolitan mindset? Government Failure and Social Entrepreneurship David Bornstein, in his book, How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas , (2004) quotes Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins from their book, Natural Capitalism : “In the past half century, the world has lost a fourth of is topsoil and a third of its forest cover. At present rates of destruction, we will lose 70 percent of the world’s coral reefs in our lifetime, host to 25 percent of marine life. In the past three decades, one third of the planet’s resources, its ‘natural wealth’ has been consumed” (Bornstein, 2004, p. 7). Bornstein suggest that it is more effective for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other socially oriented organizations sometimes
known as the “third sector” to impact societal and environmental problems than government. He points out that the so-called “antiglobalization” movement is in fact, not a movement against globalization, “but a strategy crafted by citizens to take back some of the power their governments have ceded to corporations” (p. 9). He also points out that there are three hundred multinational corporations that control 25 percent of the world’s assets. Governments are not able to contain and regulate these powerful organizations sufficiently. New organizations (profit and non-profit) designed with a social conscience must rise up to balance the inequity inherent within the environmental/ economic struggle. Economist Joseph Stiglitz makes the point in his book, Globalization and Its Discontents that the failure of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is a prime example of how government bureaucracy is not up to the task of providing fair economic treatment to the poor. He suggests in his follow-up book, Making Globalization Work (2006) ways in which organizations can create a global social contract. One of the ideas that he discusses is the business social responsibility (BSR) movement. The BSR movement is developing metrics to ensure that companies live up to their ideals: “accounting frameworks are being developed that track contributions to the community and environmental impact, and these are helping firms think more about the full consequences of their actions” (p. 199). He also points out that voluntary measures among corporations are not sufficient to significantly curb environmental abuses in the short term. Tougher laws and restrictions are in order to prevent organizations from serving the bottom line at the expense of the environment (pp. 200 – 210).