Issuu on Google+

Spring, 2010 EDLD 601/559

Organizational Theory and Change

3 Units

MRH 131, Tuesdays 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Instructor Contact Information and Office Hours George Reed Phone: 619-940-4102 george.reed@sandiego.edu Office hours Monday and Tuesday 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. and by appointment, Room 275B, Mother Rosalie Hill Hall Course Description This course provides a multiple perspectives approach to theories of organizations and change. Leadership requires individuals to discern and balance competing demands and tensions inherent in organizations. This course uses a selection of Gareth Morgan’s metaphors as lenses to think about different aspects of organizational life. The metaphors will be augmented by classic readings in organizational theory. Students will apply various theories to case studies in order to develop insights for organizational change. This course meets over four weekends and may involve some online content. The primary goal of this course is to provide students with ways of thinking about organizations in order to cope with the ambiguity and paradox inherent in complex social organizations. A secondary goal is to acquaint students with organizational theory literature and research methods. At completion students should be able to apply course content to analyze and describe organizational issues from multiple theoretical Course Objectives/Candidate Outcomes perspectives and formulate leadership interventions to foster intentional change. Most of class time is spent in seminar dialogue, discussion of cases, and textual analysis. Students are expected to attend class prepared to discuss in depth assigned readings and cases. Class participation is extremely important to individual and class learning and thus students will be graded on their preparation, participation, and contributions to seminar learning.

This course addresses several key learning objective areas including: Leadership and Development Theories: Outcome 1- students will articulate prominent organizational theories and apply them to a variety of organizational issues and problems.

1


This is assessed through course dialogue and in the three case studies submitted as written assignments. Critical Thinking and Analytical Approaches: Outcome 2- students will select relevant information, organize and evaluate the information, and apply it to issues of leadership. This outcome is assessed via in-class presentations and in case studies submitted as written assignments. Organizational Systems and Group Dynamics: Outcome 3- students will demonstrate an understanding of key theories of organizational behavior and change and apply them in an organizational setting. This outcome I assessed via in-class presentations and in case studies submitted as written assignments, especially the final original case study. Because there is a heavy reading load for each session, I strongly recommend establishment of a reading schedule and good note taking to prevent the reading assignments from becoming overwhelming. In addition to the reading assignments, there will be oral and written assignments related to readings and class discussions. The written assignments will be short but should be well-conceived and well-written. The written assignments are designed to be cumulative in the sense that earlier assignments will provide foundations for later ones. The final written assignment will consist of an original case study and analysis. It may be based on personal experience and research. The case should contain sufficient essential detail in order to provide opportunities for induction (reasoning from particulars to general statements) and reconstruction of the experience. The facts surrounding the case should be separated from the discussion and analysis of the case by a page break. Textbooks/Readings Required Texts: Morgan, Gareth (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage. Meyer, Kenneth, C. and Brown, Charles H. (1989). Practicing Public Management: A Casebook, 2nd Ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press. (Readings Packet available at Bookstore) Shein, Edgar H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Other course readings are available on-line through electronic reserve via the Copley

2


Library. The password is “organization.” All course materials outside of assigned texts are also available via WebCT. Course Requirements/Activities Note: There will be no class on January 26th. Tuesday, February 2, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Session 1

Overview of Course Objectives and Deliverables.

Session 2

Tuesday, February 9, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Establishing Classroom Climate, Organizational Theory, Literature, and Research and Introduction to Classical Theories Meyer, Kenneth, C. and Brown, Charles H. (1989) Practicing Public Management: A Casebook, 2nd Ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 7-12. Organization Theory Literature and Research- Classical Theories Morgan, Gareth (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage, pp. i-8, 337-362. Morgan, Gareth (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage, pp. 1-31. Weber, Max (1946). “Bureaucracy” Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Taylor, Fredrick Winslow (1916). “The Principles of Scientific Management” in Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 61-78. In seminar we will view and discuss the classic Fritz Lang film, “Metropolis.”

Session 3

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Organizations as Machines and Bureaucracy

3


Fayol, Henri (1949). “General Principles of Management” in Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 48-60. Gulick, Luther (1937). “Notes on the Theory of Organization” Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont: CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 79-87. Merton, Robert K. (1957) “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality” in Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 103-111. Wilson, James Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books, pp. 1-28, 154-175. (Copley Reserve and WebCT) In seminar we will view and discuss the classic Charlie Chaplin film, “Modern Times.”

Tuesday, February 23, 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Session 4 Organizations as Organisms

Morgan, Gareth (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage, pp. 33-69. Burns, Tom and Stalker, G.M. (1994). “Mechanistic and Organic Systems” in Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 198-202. Heifetz, Ronald A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 69-100. (Copley Reserve and WebCT) Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert (1996). “Organizations and the System Concept” in Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004) in Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 480-490.

Session 5

Tuesday, March 2, 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Organizations as Systems Senge, Peter M. (1990) “The Fifth Discipline: A Shift of Mind” in Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 441-449.

4


Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Salancik, Gerald (1978) “External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective” in Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 521-532. Wheatley, Margaret J. (1999). Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 3-25. (Copley Reserve) Reed, George E. (2006). “Leadership and Systems Thinking.” Defense AT&L, May-June 2006, pp. 2-5. (WebCT). In seminar we will watch and discuss the film “Water of Ayole.” First Case Study or Journal Article Due

SPRING BREAK 8-12 MARCH NO CLASSES

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Session 6

Organizations as Brains and Learning Organizations Morgan, Gareth (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage, pp. 71114. Senge, Peter (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday, pp. 139-173. (Copley Reserve and WebCT) Garvin David A. (1993). “Building a Learning Organization.” Harvard Business Review. July-August, pp. 78-91. Reprint 93402. (Copley Reserve and WebCT) Argyris, Chris (1973). “Some Limits of Rational Man Organizational Theory.” Public Administration Review. Vol. 33, No. 3 (May-Jun, 1973), pp. 253-267. (Copley Reserve and WebCT). Smircich, Linda and Morgan, Gareth (1982) Leadership: The Management of Meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 257-273. (Copley Reserve and WebCT)

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Session 7 Organizations as Political Systems

Morgan, Gareth (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage, pp. 149206.

5


Hatch, Mary Jo (1997). “Organizational Decision Making, Power, and Politics” in Organization Theory: Modern Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 269-299. (Copley Reserve) Allison, Graham T. (1969) “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” American Political Science Review. Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 689-718. (Copley Reserve) Follett, Mary Parker (1926). “The Giving of Orders” in Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 152-157. Janis, Irving L. (1971). “Groupthink: The Desperate Drive for Consensus at Any Cost” in Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 185-192. Quinn, Robert E. (1988) Beyond Rational Management. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 44-65. (Copley Reserve and WebCT)

Session 8

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Organizations as Political Systems Part II. In seminar we will view and discuss the Errol Morris Film The Fog of War. Second Case Study or journal Article Due.

Session 9

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Organizations as Cultures Morgan, Gareth (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage, pp. 115140. Denison, Daniel R. (1996). What is the Difference between Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate? A Native’s Point of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 3. (Jul., 1996), pp. 619-654. Available on JSTOR at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=03637425%28199607%2921%3A3%3C619%3 AWITDBO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z. (Copley Reserve and WebCT) Shein, Edgar H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd Ed. pp.1-23, 203222, 331-363, 245-271, 63-86, 291-317.

6


Session 10

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Organizations as Cultures Part II Hatch, Mary Jo (1993). The Dynamics of Organizational Culture. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 4. (Oct., 1993), pp. 657-693. Available on JSTOR at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199310%2918%3A4%3C657%3AT DOOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E (Copley Reserve and WebCT) Martin, Joanne (2002). “Organizational Culture: Pieces of the Puzzle” in Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 393-414. Trice, Harrison M. and Beyer, Janice M. (1984). Studying Organizational Cultures Through Rites and Ceremonials. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Oct., 1984), pp. 653-669. Available on JSTOR at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=03637425%28198410%299%3A4%3C653%3ASOCTRA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 (Copley Reserve and WebCT) Trice, Harrison M. and Beyer, Janice M. (1993). “Changing Organizational Cultures” in Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 383-293. Experiential Learning Event: Discuss the cultural audit. In seminar we will view and discuss the documentary film The Deep Dive. Session 11

Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Organizational Change Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 331. Pascale, Richard T. and Sternin, J. (2005) Your Company’s Secret Change Agents. Harvard Business Review. (May, 2005), Reprint RO5O5D, pp. 73-81. (Copley Reserve) Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Spring, 1959), pp. 79-88. Available on JSTOR at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00333352%28195921%2919%3A2%3C79%3ATSO% 22T%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 Charan, Ram (2006). Home Depot’s Blueprint for Culture Change. Harvard Business Review. (April, 2006), Reprint R09604C, pp. 61-70. (Copley Reserve)

7


Grow, Brian (January 15, 2007) Blowup at Home Depot: Behind the dramatic fall of an imperial CEO. Business Week, pp. 56-62. Burke, W. Warner (2002). Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 239-295. (Copley Reserve) Session 12

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Final Case and Paper Presentations

Session 13

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Final Case and Paper Presentations

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:30-8:20 p.m.

Session 14 Final Case and Paper Presentations Final Cases and Papers Due Assessment Plan/Grading Criteria/Rubrics

Students are assessed on the basis of participation, and the quality of their contributions to seminar learning based on dialogue, oral presentations, and written assignments. Participation and contribution are assessed by attendance record and instructor judgment. Case studies and oral presentations are assessed by rubrics (See appendices). Bibliography

Allison, Graham T. (1969) “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” American Political Science Review. Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 689-718. Argyris, Chris (1973). “Some Limits of Rational Man Organizational Theory.” Public Administration Review. Vol. 33, No. 3 (May-Jun, 1973), pp. 253-267. Brookfield, Stephen D. and Preskill, Stephen (2005) Discussion As a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms. 2nd Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Burke, W. Warner (2002). Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

8


Charan, Ram (2006). Home Depot’s Blueprint for Culture Change. Harvard Business Review. (April, 2006), Reprint R09604C, pp. 61-70. Denison, Daniel R. (1996). What is the Difference between Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate? A Native’s Point of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 3. (Jul., 1996), pp. 619-654. Garvin David A. (1993). “Building a Learning Organization.” Harvard Business Review. July-August, pp. 78-91. Reprint 93402. Grow, Brian (January 15, 2007) Blowup at Home Depot: Behind the dramatic fall of an imperial CEO. Business Week, pp. 56-62. Hatch, Mary Jo (1997). “Organizational Decision Making, Power, and Politics” in Organization Theory: Modern Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Hatch, Mary Jo (1993). The Dynamics of Organizational Culture. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 4. (Oct., 1993), pp. 657-693. Heifetz, Ronald A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Spring, 1959), pp. 79-88.

Meyer, Kenneth, C. and Brown, Charles H. (1989). Practicing Public Management: A Casebook, 2nd Ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Morgan, Gareth (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage. Pascale, Richard T. and Sternin, J. (2005) Your Company’s Secret Change Agents. Harvard Business Review. (May, 2005), Reprint RO5O5D, pp. 73-81. Quinn, Robert E. (1988) Beyond Rational Management. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Senge, Peter (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Shein, Edgar H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Shafritz, Jay, Ott, Steven, Jang, Yong, Suk. (2004). Classics of Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

9


Trice, Harrison M. and Beyer, Janice M. (1984). Studying Organizational Cultures through Rites and Ceremonials. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Oct., 1984), pp. 653-669. Wheatley, Margaret J. (1999). Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Wilson, James Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.

NOTE: STUDENTS WHO FAIL TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS COURSE WILL RECEIVE AN “INCOMPLETE.” THE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET BY THE END OF THE TENTH WEEK OF THE NEXT REGULAR SEMESTER; OTHERWISE, THE “I” GRADE WILL BE COUNTED AS AN “F.” Students with disabilities who believe that they may need accommodations in the class are encouraged to contact Disability Services in Serra 300 (tel. 260-4655) as soon as possible to better ensure that such accommodations are implemented in a timely fashion.

10


Appendices Appendix A: Case Study Format Case #: Title FACTS: Provide a brief summary of the key facts bearing on the case. Do not repeat every fact of the case study in detail, but provide essential information that provides an adequate context for the discussion that is to follow. ISSUES: Highlight the issues, tensions, and key concepts raised by the case. This is a good place to identify the metaphor, concept, or approach that you will take in analyzing the case. SOLUTION: In this section you should provide the recommended approach or intervention based on the metaphor, concept, or approach that you selected. JUDGMENT: Provide your assessment of the likely results of your proposed solution. Evaluative Criteria for written products: Your ability to communicate in writing will be assessed using the following criteria: • The appropriateness and quality of the content; specifically the ideas presented and the degree to which they are supported through illustrations, reasoning, and evidence; • the clarity and logic of the paper’s organization; and, • the style of the paper in terms of the technical correctness of the paper’s mechanics, including the use of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and APA style.

11


Appendix B: Rubric for Evaluating Case Studies Needs Improvement Contains insufficient information to determine context or excessive facts not germane to the case. Issues not related to a specific lens, concept, or metaphor. Fails to identify relevant issues.

Meets Standards Brief, yet complete recitation of key facts necessary to establish the context of the case. Identifies issues reflecting a lens, concept, or metaphor in assigned readings or literature.

Solutions

Solutions not linked to issues or relevant readings or literature. Inadequate level of interpretation, not well reasoned.

Judgment

Lacks of applied judgment. Demonstrates inaccurate or superficial use of readings or literature.

Solutions reflect thoughtful analysis. Convincing and well reasoned. Assertions adequately supported by assigned readings or literature. Well reasoned and feasible interpretation of likely outcomes based on accurate use of reading or literature.

Facts

Issues

12

Exceeds Standards Complete recitation of essential facts. Reflects considerable perceptivity. Issues reflect a mature ability to think issues through. Relates issues to assigned readings or literature. Exemplary analysis. Original, insightful, and reflects synthesis of readings and literature. Solutions are persuasive and compelling. High level of analysis, synthesis and explication in sufficient depth. Conveys insight and good command of assigned material.


Appendix C: Rubric for Evaluating Oral Presentations Needs Improvement Meets Standards

Exceeds Standards

Content

Lacks clarity, completeness and unity. Not supported by assigned readings or literature. Exceeds time limits. Not a valuable contribution to seminar learning.

Professional presentation. Covers major points. Clearly linked to assigned readings or literature. Arguments are coherent, logical, and persuasive. Presented within accepted time limits.

Exemplary content with high level of analysis, interpretation, and explication. A contribution to seminar learning. Crisp, persuasive, insightful, and linked to assigned readings or literature. Good use of time.

Organization

Lacks sense of structure. Abrupt. Subject left hanging; questions left unanswered.

Contains clear sense of beginning, middle and end. Clear conclusion or summation. Clearly well thought out and organized.

Organization contributes to the persuasiveness of the presentation. Depth and breadth of information uniform and inclusive. Suitable for presentation to an academic audience without modification.

Delivery

Boring presentation that demonstrates lack of consideration for the audience. Little preparation evident.

Solid presentation. Keeps audience’s attention. Professional delivery. Clear, strong and articulate. Visual aids suitable. Truly a presentation, not a reading.

Style, emphasis, voice and bearing contribute to persuasive and informative presentation. Presentation aids are well crafted and helpful.

13


Appendix D: Avoiding Plagiarism Hugo Bedau wrote in Thinking and Writing About Philosophy (p. 141) that "Writers plagiarize when they use another's words or ideas without suitable acknowledgement. Plagiarism amounts to theft--theft of language and thought. Plagiarism also involves deception…. [Plagiarism] wrongs the person from whom the words or thoughts were taken and to whom no credit was given; and it wrongs the reader by fraudulently misrepresenting the words or thoughts as though they are the writer's own." Finally, although it sounds like a cliché, when you plagiarize you cheat yourself: first, by not developing the discipline and diligence to research, write, and edit well; second, because taking credit for other people's ideas will induce outrage and resentment against you; and third, because a habit of plagiarism can end your career and destroy your reputation. If you are unfamiliar with the University of San Diego’s policy, please read it. The code of academic integrity is not just rhetoric; forms of academic dishonesty, including but not limited to cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, or facilitating academic dishonesty, may result in suspension or expulsion from the university. To avoid plagiarism, you must cite your sources everywhere in your paper where you use the ideas of others, and not only when you quote them directly, but also where you paraphrase their points in your own words. In general, you should only use direct quotes when you find the author’s wording to be especially effective. Your paraphrasing or summaries of author’s points should be thorough. It is not fair to an author to change only a couple of words in a paragraph and then imply (by not using direct quotes) that the paragraph is entirely your own prose. It might help to imagine the author reading over your shoulder. You are certainly encouraged to work and learn collaboratively, both within and outside the seminar. The work you submit, however, should reflect your own thoughts and ideas, expressed in your own words unless you cite whose words you are using. You must cite references you use in completing your work using the format of the APA 5th Edition Style Manual. If you are unsure of what this means, please check with me before completing an assignment.

14


http://www.sandiego.edu/uploads/38319/4c6f0396900bda6d7ee4574b51144b9a