Читать книгу Cultural Reflection in Management - Lukasz Sulkowski - Страница 14

Functionalism was born from the spirit of sociology, anthropology and management sciences that were busy building their own identities in the early twentieth century. Spencer used the analogy between society and living organism, underlining the harmoniousness of collaboration and the significance of social order. E. Durkheim, considered the "father" of contemporary sociology, postulated a distinction between mechanistic and organic types of social solidarity.⁵². The former were seen as characteristic of primitive communities, while the latter - of modern industrial societies. The functionalist concept of culture was first used in the late 19th century, and spread thanks to the research of the most eminent functionalists, such as B. Malinowski and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown. It then reached the peak of its popularity in the 1960s thanks to T. Parsons⁵³..

Functionalism is still adominating orientation in the social sciences, although it has been criticised in sociology by representatives of conflict theory, and more generally within the symbolic interactionism paradigm of the social sciences since the 1960s. Defending functionalism, R. Merton suggested to modify some of its assumptions, but keeping to the postulates of homeostasis, social hierarchy and functional dependency⁵⁴. Today, functionalism does no longer dominate in many social sciences, but it still has prominent advocates, including N. Luhmann and A. Giddens⁵⁵.

Many critics of functionalism are of the opinion that it is closely related to neopositivism and that the convergence in time related to the creation of both ←31 | 32→these currents was not a coincidence. Z. Bauman believes that an obvious result of the application of the enlightenment’s ideals in the cultural discourse was Social Darwinism and its mission to ‘civilise savages’⁵⁶. A functionalist view of culture is based on assumptions focused aroundthe neopositivist Vienna Circle. This signifies cognitive and political optimism, and a belief in the project of objectivist science, which again leads to human progress. The neopositivist concept of the cultural discourse within the functionalist current was related to a striving for the studies of culture based on models drawn from the natural sciences. Thus, they were attempting to build such a project in the social sciences that, apart from objectivism and axiological neutrality, would offer a determinist model of cultural processes. This utopia is rooted in the mechanistic physics of the Newtonian paradigm, together with its own characteristic elements such as time and space universalism, determinism and a mathematical perception of reality. They were also striving for a cleansing of scientific research of ‘metaphysical’ elements, which were, by definition, omni-present in cultural discourse. System and structure became popular notions describing culture, and were seen from the perspective of the social functions. In the functionalist, and then structural understanding, culture was a system and a structure, through which the coherence of societies and other human communities was developed and maintained. Thus, the integrational role of culture was of crucial significance, as it connected, provided identity, and – in consequence – shaped the scientific progress and development of humankind. Logical empiricism, including its scientism, offered an epistemological and methodological basis for the development of functionalism in the social sciences. The theories developed were supposed to be subject to empirical verification, as a result of the development of a reliable scientific method, which would be in accordance with the cognitive ideals of natural science. The proposed empirical research method was supposed to allow for mathematical formalisation and quantification of the results of scientific inquiries. The goal of the analysis of a social group was to find the causative relationships between functions, i.e. variables, in the model. Thus, it would be possible to generalise, which would allow creation of a more general, repeatable pattern, allowing for the description of all social processes in a standard way⁵⁷.

←32 | 33→

Management science consolidated at the same time as neopositivism and functionalism, i.e. at the beginning of the 20th century. It does not come as a surprise that the creators of management science, such as F.W. Talor and H. Fayol, assumed neopositivism as the default, natural way of practising it. Functionalism also dominates in the social sciences, and is the fundamental approach to cultural processes. After the Second World War, the systemic approach go connected with functionalism and neopositivism, which led to a consolidation of the dominant paradigm in the social sciences⁵⁸.

A system is a whole, comprising functionally interconnected sub-systems. The general systems theory was created by L. Bertalanffy, who integrated previous concepts⁵⁹. Similarly to functional structuralism, the basic assumptions include integration of the whole system, a striving for homeostasis and balance, and functional correlations between its elements and a hierarchical system structure. The systems theory postulates a differentiation between closed and open systems, which bears a similarity to the Durkheimian analogy between the mechanistic and the organic. Another important issue is the assumption of emergence, or the appearance of specific features of a system at subsequent levels of complexity. The general systems theory was one of the attempts at creating the most general theories integrating science. This generality is both a value and a limitation of the concept at the same time. Far-reaching generalisations would allow the integration of science, eliminating the dichotomy between the natural and social sciences, but on the other hand, generality results in a lack of possibility to falsify concepts. This places the general systems theory on the level of science philosophy, not an actual empirical science⁶⁰..

The understanding of organisational culture in the neopositivist-functionalist current refers to the assumptions of nomothetic science, which strives for the generalisation of credible research results. Organisational culture is seen as being an entity of a systemic and holistic character that objectively exists. It consists of specific elements (subsystems) which function within cause and effect correlations. The most often mentioned elements of organisational culture include values, norms, basic assumptions, cultural patterns, heroes, stereotypes, myths, stories, rituals and taboos.

←33 | 34→

The functionalist view of culture puts emphasis on balance, harmony and order, which are related to research into the problem of internal integration. Therefore, the subjects of interest are not subcultures or counter-cultures which, by definition, limit the internal integration of culture. According to E. Schein, organisational culture develops within two key orientations. The first is the need for internal integration, which is manifested in the strength or homogeneity of culture, and the other is the striving for the external adaptation, which is manifested in its competitiveness. A balance between these two dimensions results in creation of an effective, positive organisational culture⁶¹. Internal integration can be viewed at as coherence and the strength of internal relationships, determining the way organisation functions as a whole. The levels of internal integration of functioning organizations may differ. One can create a continuum from full integration to complete disintegration, using the criticism of functionalism made by representatives of the conflict theory, such as R. Dahrendorf and L. Coser⁶² (Tab. 2). A fully integrated organisation is a hypothetical entity, which never occurs in reality. It is theoretically possible only in the context of a total institution, which is a very special, extreme case of organisation. Full disintegration means the breaking of the organisational whole into smaller entities, as a result of decentralist tendencies. A fully disintegrated organisation is of a transitory and temporary character, as after reaching the critical point of system disintegration it can no longer be perceived as a whole.

Tab. 2: Integrational and coercive concepts of an organisational system. Source: Own work based on R. Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict.

Integrational concept	Coercive concept
Organisation is permanent and stable	Organisation undergoes permanent changes
Organisation is a system of functionally integrated elements	Organisation is a system of random, temporary relationships between its elements
Organisation functions in the context of social order	Organisation functions in the context of a social conflict
Organisation elements contribute to maintaining the system as a whole	Organisation elements contribute to the disintegration and the change of the whole system
All existing organisations are based on a sharing of their common values by their members	All organisations are based on coercion of some members by others
Organisation is a whole	Organisation may be perceived as a whole

An organisation can be maintained as a whole (integrated) by external or internal factors. In order to maintain it as a whole, it has to be integrated externally, institutionally and legally. Organisational coherence can also be studied from the system and internal perspectives. This makes it possible to look for the sources and mechanisms of integration on all levels and in all sub-systems. Strategy can be an important factor uniting an organisation – if both individual members and social groups (colleagues, employees and interest groups) identify themselves with the aims of the organisation, then this facilitates the integration of the whole system. Another factor that strengthens this integration in the area of strategy further is support for the organisation’s aims from broader social groups, and not only the organisation’s own members. This takes place when the ←34 | 35→organisation’s mission meets the conditions of social responsibility. An organisation is more integrated structurally when individuals approve and understand their place within the organisational structure and power relationships accompanying it, and when the structure is a reflection of the internal social diversification of the organisation and the external social structure.

Naturally, just as the areas of strategy, structure and culture can be treated as elements creating integration in situations when the aims, power structure or system of values at the level of individuals, social groups and organisations within a society are coherent, one can also see a contrary tendency (Tab. 3). An organisation’s disintegration arises from the lack of strategic, structural or cultural coherence. However, it has to be understood that both integrational and disintegrational forces can contribute to an organisation’s development.

Tab. 3: Levels and areas of the internal integration of an organisation. Source: Own work.

The extent of an organisation’s integration can change considerably with time. Internal reasons for these changes are usually difficult to foresee and are of a revolutionary character. They include, among others, the processes of takeovers and mergers, which happen in many globalised economic sectors. It is usually easier to diagnose the internal factors behind changes in an organisation’s integration level.

In conclusion, the functionalist view of organisational culture, being the oldest, classical and most popular cognitive perspective in the social sciences, has a number of characteristic features.

1.

←35 | 36→