Chapter 1
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to introduce you to the analytical framework that you will
encounter throughout the textbook and the course as a whole.
Course text
Read through pages 1–40. As stated in the course information, this is not a typical
organisational behaviour (OB) course, so it is important that you understand how and
why it is differents. The main point of difference is that each chapter comprises an
overview of key contributions to the mainstream study of its topic, followed by a
reappraisal of those contributions from a more critical perspective.
What is organisational behaviour?
OB draws upon a range of social scientific disciplines.
 Sociology examines behaviour in relation to social, political,
psychological and economic conditions that affect it, but in turn are
reproduced or reproduced by it.
 Psychology concentrates on how individuals think and behave.
 Politics focuses on competitive struggles for political power and
influence.
 Economics examines how wealth is produced and distributed.
February 2007
MGMT 202
Module 1
1
Each discipline produces a distinctive way of understanding organisations and the
behaviour of people in them. Most OB textbooks are dominated by a psychological
perspective, which means that core OB topics have tended to focus on individual and
group processes (motivation, leadership, teamwork, etc). The textbook for this course
incorporates the psychological view, but draws more heavily on sociological and
political perspectives than typical OB courses. This gives an appreciation of how
seemingly ‘psychological’ factors are shaped by and embedded in social relations that
stretch beyond organisational members and the boundaries attributed to organisations.
For example, when considering a topic such as motivation, which draws heavily from
psychology, we are also invited to consider the economic and political conditions of
work that shape an individual’s motivation, as well as any relevant historical and
cultural forces.
A common reaction to introductory courses in OB it is all just ‘commonsense’. For
instance, it is ‘commonsense’ that effective managers require a high level of technical
expertise, are able to plan and organise well, are skilful communicators and team
builders etc.
One of the aims of this course is not only to move beyond these
‘commonsense’ understandings of organisations, but to challenge ‘commonsense’ itself.
When something is considered to be ‘commonsense’, we tend to treat it as an
unquestionable truth that leaves no room for debate and discussion. For example, it is
‘commonsense’ that human nature means people will act in their economic self-interest.
Many theories in organisation behaviour and in related disciplines such as economics
are based on this assumption. In this course, you are encouraged to challenge takenfor-granted knowledge such as this. For instance, it can be argued that economic selfinterest is not an essential quality of human nature, but rather an effect of how, in
Western materialistic societies, the individual and wealth are elevated as key values.
This has become so pervasive that it has created a ‘commonsense’ understanding that
humans are inherently economically self-interested. Once we are prepared to challenge
‘commonsense’, we can then begin to explore why human nature is identified in
particular ways that appeal to ‘commonsense’.
February 2007
MGMT 202
Module 1
2
What is the relevance of this to OB? Typical OB courses focus on providing
‘commonsense’ techniques and prescriptions that claim to make people more effective
managers, through such things as better communication and planning. This approach is
managerialist in that it assigns to managers the exclusive power to define the goals of
the organisation and their means of achievement. In its extreme form, it proposes that
everything can be managed efficiently through the application of the right techniques.
Knights and Willmott believe this approach is highly idealistic, fails to capture the
complexities of human behaviour in organisations and is therefore likely to be of little
practical value. So, why do most OB courses present a ‘commonsense’ view of
management? Knights and Willmott suggest it presents a positive and glamorous image
of management that is attractive to students because it portrays management as a
responsible and respectable profession where the manager’s role is ‘simply’ to enable
others to achieve the shared goals of the organisation. They argue that this fails to
recognise the complexities and difficulties of managing. Often those being managed do
not share management’s goals for the organisation and these people might have a very
low opinion of managers.
Activity 1
Think of examples from history where knowledge gained the status of ‘commonsense’
but was later found to be deeply flawed (e.g., the view that the world was flat). Can
you think of examples related to managing organisations?
February 2007
MGMT 202
Module 1
3
What is an organisation?
It is common in introductory chapters in OB textbooks to provide a definition for
‘organisation’. Knights and Willmott provide three different ways in which
‘organisation’ can be defined, identified and analysed.
In the entity view, organisations are unified entities consisting of a set of
characteristics, such as rules, structures and hierarchies. Attention is focused on aspects
of organising that coincide with the concerns of senior management, with little attention
given to conflicting interests of other members of the organisation. This view is
criticised for being politically naïve and simplistic and for constructing a
‘commonsense’ view of OB.
In the process view, the focus is not on organisations as entities, but on processes of
organising wherever organised activities occur, such in families, sports teams and so on.
Organisations are made up of processes of organising, but these processes are not
confined to organisations. These processes give rise to the activities which the entity
view describes as tasks, roles, structures etc.
February 2007
MGMT 202
Module 1
4
Knights and Willmott prefer a concept view of organising, which understands that
‘organisation’ is a word that can assume a variety of meanings and can exert a number
of different effects. These meanings are always partial and political. It is partial in the
sense that it reveals only one aspect of ‘organisation’ and political because it
encourages people to see and organise the world in particular ways. For example, there
is a long tradition within management thinking of conceiving of organisations as being
like machines – with parts (departments) which take inputs (money, labour,etc) to
produce outputs (products). These parts sometime breakdown (through poor
communication) and sometimes require heavy maintenance (restructuring), with new
parts being added or removed. From a concept view of organisation, this is partial
because it downplays the significance of human emotions, anxieties etc and political
because it encourages us to think about solving management problems and issues in
particular ways. When a particular concept of organisations becomes dominant, it
becomes ‘commonsense’.
Mainstream and critical perspectives on OB
The curriculum of OB courses usually gives priority to ideas that are conservative and
pro-managerial.
For example, it is assumed that managers alone have the knowledge
and the right to determine how work should be organised. This perspective is the
mainstream or orthodox view. It is what most people currently recognise as a
legitimate way of doing or thinking about management and organisation. It regards
managing as a technical activity and organisations as a neutral instrument for achieving
shared goals. As a consequence, OB can become a technology of control, with each
topic (such as leadership, motivation) presented as an element of a control toolkit.
Efficiency and profit are seen to inform everything that happens in organisations, while
social and moral responsibilities are forgotten, except when recognising these
responsibilities becomes a profit-maximising strategy (as is often the case with
‘corporate social responsibility’).
February 2007
MGMT 202
Module 1
5
In each chapter of the text, the presentation of the mainstream approach is followed by a
critical perspective. Here ‘critical’ has a particular meaning of challenging received
wisdom or orthodoxy in some way. For example, whereas the mainstream focus is on
shared goals in an organisation, the critical view regards organisations as a political
instrument for achieving contested goals. It should be noted that ‘mainstream’ and
‘critical’ are not sealed ‘boxes of knowledge’. What is considered critical, radical and
even subversive thinking at one point of time can, in the future, become part of the
mainstream. An example is the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa led by Nelson
Mandela. His views were at one time considered so critical that those in authority
considered that they warranted his imprisonment, but these views eventually became
mainstream thinking to the extent that Mandela became president. Another example is
ideas around corporate social responsibility and the view that organisations have
responsibilities aside from the maximisation of profit. This was initially considered a
critical view, but has largely been adopted by the mainstream.
Activity 2
After reading this chapter consider the expectations that you had coming into this
course.
How much was it aligned to a mainstream or ‘commonsense’ view of
organisations? What is your response to the idea of a critical view? How might it
encourage you to think differently about organisations that you are familiar with?
February 2007
MGMT 202
Module 1
6
Key words
sociology
organisation
psychology
entity view
politics
process view
economics
concept view
commonsense
mainstream
taken-for-granted
critical
managerialist
February 2007
MGMT 202
Module 1
7