Modernist Versus Postmodernist Perspectives Research (Essay Sample)

Modernist versus Postmodernist Perspectives
Name
University AffiliationModernist versus Postmodernist Perspectives
Modernists and postmodern scholars have developed perspectives of reality based on theories about epistemology and ontology. To explain, epistemology is how we know what is known whereas ontology is what is knowable. These perspectives reflect various perspectives about the nature of organizations. It is worth mentioning that objectivism is the ontology of modernists. Thereby, modernists accept reality that is independent from people's knowledge. At the same time, they believe that scientific observation methods with reliable and valid measurements are used to discover knowledge. These methods allow people to test their comprehension of the world. What is more, modernists view organizations as entities that operate in a real world where techniques and procedures can be tested to improve effectiveness (Tata & Prasad, 2015). Conversely, the ontology of post-modern theorists is that people see the world though discourse and language. Furthermore, they describe knowledge as a valid interpretation of meaning that is derived from people with power (Powell & Osborne, 2015). Again, postmodern theorists view organizations as texts that individuals can rewrite and deconstruct to reveal the opinions of the oppressed.
Objective
The objective of this paper is to evaluate how various epistemological and ontological views enhance understanding of perspectives of sustainability in organizations.
Power
Modernist Perspectives of Power
Richard (2012) writes that according to John French and Bertram Raven social power is based on five aspects including expert, referent, legitimate, coercive, and reward power. Expert power is exercised through specialized knowledge. Referent power is through association. Legitimate power is founded in the obligations and values that an individual has for the powerful entity. Coercive power is the expectation that failure to comply results in punishment. Reward power depends on the ability to reduce negative valences and offer positive rewards. The theory of power and social influence is limited to a person, P, created by social agent, O, whereby O can be a role, another person, a group, a norm, or a part of a group. John French and Bertram Raven base power on resistance and attraction between P and O, but P must expect or perceive O to actually possess a particular power base. Accordingly, the five bases can only apply effective power if P expects that O has authority to do so. Power is based on resistance and attraction of P towards O. For example, corcersion causes reduced attraction and high resistance of P toward O whereas the result of reward power is low resistance and increased attraction. Tata and Prasad (2015) interpretation of power emphasizes on multiple sources of authority based on individual perceptions.
Thomas (2011) writes that John Kottler introduces four methods that managers use to generate power. The first is perceived dependence on managers that may be acquired by actual or perceived accrual of resources. The second is via unconscious identification whereby the unconscious or conscious idealized appearance of a manager is a source of power. Third is though a belief in the manager's experience and expertise such that others respect him or her. Finally, is by creation of obligation in others whereby others allow the manager to influence them if he or she is successful. Tata and Prasad (2015) argue that the means by which Kottler describes generation of power are dependent upon the perceptions of an individual as sources of power. Ultimately, power flows in multiple directions since individuals decide whether to grant power to managers.
Postmodern Perspectives of Power
Michel Foucault proposed the disciplinary power concept that occurs when individuals exercise self-surveillance due to anticipation of control. Consequently, people become self-disciplined by policing themselves. Examples of disciplinary power can occur when there is routine surveillance for instance in prisons and schools. From the perspective of organizations, the theory emphasizes the critical role of disciplinary technology and the result of internalized control among members of the firm. With the use of computer surveillance organizational life is controlled via constant disciplinary power. The postmodern theory is critical of modernist approach (Powell & Osborne, 2015). Rather than relying on ordered and hierarchical systems or depending on perceptions of individuals, the disciplinary power is based on the context.
Asimakou (2009) sees gender as a foundation of domination of women and minorities in organizations. The preference of male leaders to female managers hinders women equality in companies. Asimakou’s theory claims that power is based on symbolic definitions of primary masculine, ideal roles that are not based in structural and rational reasoning. Ultimately, that has led to domination and marginalization of women in multiple organizations.
Modernist perspectives view power as equally sourced within organizations with ability for acquisition and use at all levels of a company. Thus, power can be seen as a negative and positive force in a firm. Conversely, postmodern perspectives of power seek to expose abuse of authority through marginalization and domination and seems to focus more on cultural and gender domination.
Culture
Modernist Perspectives of Culture
Powell and Osborne (2015) identify fragmentation, differentiation, and integration as three perspectives within organizational culture. The fragmentation perspective embraces a postmodern view of culture in organizations and looks for neither stability not consistence but rather focuses on ways in which cultures within organizations are ambiguous, inconsistent, multiplicitous as well as constantly changing. The differentiation perspective has a subcultural view and describes how unity in organizations is broken by subcultures. However, subcultures are depicted as stable, coherent, and consistent wholes. The integration perspective describes organizational culture as being shared by all the members of a culture in a company.
According to Ybema, Yanow, and Sabelis (2011), the fragmentation perspective may be described as a postmodern critique of differentiation perspective. The critique focuses on how the differentiation perspective identifies oppositional or dichotomous thinking for example whites versus blacks and women versus men. Subcultures represent the end of a dichotomy and one alternative in the dichotomy is believed to be of higher status than the other. Unfortunately, dichotomous thinking misrepresents and oversimplifies the viewpoints and attributes of individuals in lower status groups. For instance in an organization where whites are believed to have greater value and more status than blacks, the unique and valuable attributes of the subordinated group are ignored. Warren (2012) argues that besides racial identity, hierarchical position, occupation, gender, and several other characteristics may be viewed as oppositional but are multiplicitous and co-exist within people in organizations. Due to variety of individuals identity bases, allegiances to subcultures may shift constantly with issues of discord or debate. Thereby coalitions and alliances cannot stabilize into subcultures or unified cultures since discourse and its related issues change often.
Postmodernist Perspectives of Culture
Modernists believe that values and assumptions influence behavior through expression in expectations and norms and communicate identity via customs, tradition, and symbols. Tata and Prasad (2015) argue that modernists interpret knowledge about culture as tool for management and culture as a variable to be manipulated to increase the possibility of achieving desired performance levels from other people within an organization. The aim of modernist research is to develop knowledge that may be applied in different contexts. According to modernists, it is good to sacrifice contextual sensitivity but wrong to give up organizational comparisons. The modernist argument provides evidence for control and efficiency.
Ybema, Yanow, and Sabelis (2011) write that modernist studies involve analyzing statistical variable that represent organizational performance and culture. The quantification of cultural variables requires selecting a particular dimension of the culture construct to measure. Cultural strength is a variable that is described as extent to which members within an organization share core values. For example, cultural strength may be determined by asking survey respondents about the extent to which they disagree or agree to certain statements. Subsequently, the cultural strength can be estimated by computing responses of the statistical sample to be studied. Next, observations of cultural strength for many organizations could be applied to create a variable and compute how it is correlated with various measures, such as organizational performance.
Hassard and Martin (2013) writes that although culture is strongly related to the overall performance of the organization, the relationship becomes stronger when cultural values support the adaptation of the organization to the environment. Accordingly, culture has a greater influence on the performance of organizations when it helps organizations to adapt or anticipate to environmental change. When culture does not support adaptation, performance is hindered by cultural strength. The reason for that is because an entrenched culture can hinder efforts for implementation of new strategies. Ultimately, in stable environments successful companies share a mission culture or mission of the future and have strong values for consistency culture or conformity to traditions and procedures.
Marketing
The beliefs, opinion...