Ques 8 Part I: Hieracrchy

From the eighteenth century to the early twentieth century, organizations functioned much like empires. Today, we can still see the close relationships between homes and factories in some regions, and we can also see how wealth and status allow a family to move farther away from the site of production. Thus, social control is effectively produced in part by the relationship between the location of industry and neighborhoods.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) popularized some early notions of empire and pragmatism in his Poor Richard’s Almanac. It is primarily a collection of parables and quotations that elevate hard work (called “industry”), independence (the accumulation of wealth on individual, corporate, and national levels), and the virtues of planning, organizing and controlling one’s life through work.

Frederick the Great (1712-86), King of Prussia, organized his armies on the principles of mechanics: ranks, uniforms, regulations, task specialization, standard equipment, command language, and drill instruction.

Eli Whitney’s (1765-1825) groundbreaking demonstration of mass production in 1801 was based on the production of guns, whose purpose was to maintain order and extend the power of empires.

Adam Smith (1723-90), a philosopher of economics and politics, published Wealth of Nations in 1776, which praised the divisions of labor evident in factory production.

As Karl Marx (1818-83) would demonstrate in the mid nineteenth century, division of labor was essential to organizing corporations and societies along class lines.

Overall, effective communication in the nineteenth century meant giving orders and emphasized the downward transmission of information. The top-down flow of information in hierarchies also led to the emergence of domination narratives, which ascribed particular readings of how truth, power and control were constituted in everyday conversation.

Whereas the South supported a racial hierarchy, the increasingly industrial North favored one governed by social class. For white slaveholders in the South, slavery was justified on economic and moral grounds. They believed they had a right to a cheap source of labor to farm their lands and that their accumulation of wealth was at the heart of Calvinist moral advancement. Thus, any slave attempt to challenge white authority was viewed as a challenge to the moral order.

One feature of societal dialogue, resistance to domination, helps us understand organizational dialogue. Resistance to domination is defined as any action on the part of oppressed individuals to lessen the constraints placed on them by those in power.

James Scott (1990) points out how the accounts of the powerless can function as hidden transcripts of the other side of the story. Hidden transcripts include themes and arguments that are well known by members of the oppressed group but kept out of the public eye for fear of reprisal from those in power.

In addition to slave narratives, other forms of resistance to dominations came with the slave songs, ditties, and dirges that would later become known as “the blues.” This, in turn, would lead to two other musical forms of resistance to domination: rock and roll and rap music.

The rise of the modern factory during the industrial period was an extension of a social (and racial) class structure that sought to stabilize power relations among people by controlling the means of production and consumption in society. The organization of work and communication in the early factories was highly influenced by the then-emerging concepts of division of labor and hierarchy. Division of labor refers to the separation of tasks into discrete units; hierarchy refers to the vertical arrangement of power and authority that distinguishes managers from employees.

With science came much more than a highly ordered method of explaining phenomena: From explanation emerged the ability to predict, and from the ability to predict came the potential to control. Thus, the underlying theme of the classical management approach to organization is the scientific rationalization of control.

Frederick Taylor (1865-1915) was a pioneer in the development of scientific management. His book The Principles of Scientific Management (1913) is based on the assumption that management is a true science resting on clearly defined laws, rules, and principles. Taylor’s goal was to transform the nature of both work and management. He hoped that cooperation between managers and employees would bring a new era of industrial peace.

Instead of industrial peace, scientific management led to increased conflict because it reinforced hierarchical distinctions and further objectified the already downtrodden worker. Even so, Taylor’s work ushered in a new focus on the relationship between managers and employees as a key to organizational productivity, and remains a bedrock principle of contemporary theory.

More specifically, Taylor’s model ushered in a systematic approach to the division of labor that has gone far beyond the design of work for which it was originally developed. In short, scientific management assumed that some employees are better suited to “thinking” work and some to “doing” work, thus laying the groundwork for the class-based distinction between white-collar and blue-collar employees that we know today.

Similar to Taylor’s scientific management theory, AMG is a very hierarchical company. There are definite distinct lines dividing each of the separate positions by title, office spaces and privileges. For instance, my Uncle is a senior buyer, thus he has the privilege to take out a Hummer basically whenever he wants to. Also, AMG follow very traditional management rules and can almost be deemed “old fashioned.” They simply do not grow with the new advances in our business society. Instead, they stick to their old ways because they know that they work.

I believe that AMG can become a better company if they take more risks and break out of the traditional scientific management role. I think that by being so restricted and strict with their management rules, dress and overall actions that they defer their employees from creativity. Those who work in the warehouses and factory do not have any way to relate with those who work in upper management or the offices. This is a huge hindrance because many of the managers work with those in the warehouses and factories on a daily basis. Overall, I believe that if the company blurred the traditional lines that they put between certain positions and possibly make an attempt to develop with the new technology and societal advances that they will have both happier employees as well as increase their success rate.