I appreciate the warning of over-politicizing the organization. I've encountered this, especially because my studies in history, politics, and philosophy applied to business bring out precisely what Morgan references.
How could these be used for good? Without the same shared values within an organism you will end up with contractions and competitions which is very undelightful to control and manage. A presupposition that these terms, definitions, and questions have is that the best way to guide or "influence" a certain organization is by imposing a will onto others. In some extenuating circumstances that is necessary. I would say that the more attention I can get people to pay towards The Good and away from power struggles the better we will be in the long run.
For better or worse, the odds of finding yourself in a Fortune 500 company where everyone all has the same shared values is relatively low. There are exceptions: smaller businesses, religious entities, non-profits, etc.
I think Morgan's point is that there will always be a political dimension to every human enterprise since interests always run the risk of diverging. And as soon as you have divergent interests, you have conflict. You can always say, "Hey, we don't want any conflict here." But this approach may paradoxically invite more conflict and alienation.
Imposing your will isn't always a bad thing. If you exercise your formal authority (Morgan's first source of power) to fire a lazy bum, couldn't that be a good thing for the company?
I appreciate the warning of over-politicizing the organization. I've encountered this, especially because my studies in history, politics, and philosophy applied to business bring out precisely what Morgan references.
Thanks for reading, Ryan. Yes, the "hermeneutics of suspicion," as it is called, is always a danger.
If you haven't read this article by Matthew Stewart titles The Management Myth, you should check it out:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220210000715/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-management-myth/304883/
It seems like it is up your alley. And if you do, let me know what you think!
How could these be used for good? Without the same shared values within an organism you will end up with contractions and competitions which is very undelightful to control and manage. A presupposition that these terms, definitions, and questions have is that the best way to guide or "influence" a certain organization is by imposing a will onto others. In some extenuating circumstances that is necessary. I would say that the more attention I can get people to pay towards The Good and away from power struggles the better we will be in the long run.
Thanks for your comment, Lucas.
For better or worse, the odds of finding yourself in a Fortune 500 company where everyone all has the same shared values is relatively low. There are exceptions: smaller businesses, religious entities, non-profits, etc.
I think Morgan's point is that there will always be a political dimension to every human enterprise since interests always run the risk of diverging. And as soon as you have divergent interests, you have conflict. You can always say, "Hey, we don't want any conflict here." But this approach may paradoxically invite more conflict and alienation.
Imposing your will isn't always a bad thing. If you exercise your formal authority (Morgan's first source of power) to fire a lazy bum, couldn't that be a good thing for the company?