Action in an organisation

Individual or collective action supposes that what actors do is not entirely determined by nature, the economy, technology or history.

Þ The French sociology of work tradition, initiated by Georges Friedman (1902-1977) and Pierre Naville (1904-1993), shows that the social effects of mechanisation, and then of automation (Touraine, 1925-) in production workshops (breakdown of tasks, monotony, qualification or de-qualification, etc.), cannot only be explained by the requirements of technology. They also largely depend on company policy and the way new technologies are introduced.

Þ We should take into account the computerisation of organisations (Alter, Crozier) and the introduction of management software packages (Guffond & Leconte, Vlnck). The social and organisational consequences are not determined by technology: there is no technological determinism. They arise from the action and responsibility of those involved. Thus, company management has a social responsibility with respect to the consequences of change. The participation of an organisation's members and their representatives (trade unions, works council, etc.) in negotiations is just as important as the effects of change. This approach to the world of work leads to a political reading of the company, e.g. to seeing it as a space in which negotiations and power struggles take place between groups following relatively diverging goals. Managers should study collective action and participation in the various authoritative bodies of the company: works council, health and safety committee, etc.

Þ There is no such thing as historical determinism either. Humans are not governed by historical laws. The unfolding of history cannot be explained by laws that are external to human actions (Aron, Weber).

American sociologist Talcott PARSONS (1902-1979) developed his own general theory of action. For Parsons, human action, e.g. everything making up the way humans act (behaviour, attitudes, words, thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.), can always be situated within four structuring contexts: biological, psychic, social (e.g. the context in which individuals and groups interact) and cultural (comprising standards, values, models, ideologies and knowledge). Action is the result of antagonistic forces linked to each of these contexts. Action supposes an end purpose, a goal, concrete conditions, means, standards and values.

According to this perspective, an organisation is made up of individuals who are free and able to make decisions. Together, they form a system of harmonious interaction. The stability of the social order results from the action of the organisation's members; this action involves putting the motivations of each person into standardised models governing their behaviour and judgement. The actors share values that are beyond them; these values are interiorised. Individuals tend to conform to group rules. Furthermore, actors communicate via symbols (language system). Action can thus be explained by shared cultural content and common rules.

Although Parsons thus developed a theory of action, recognising the actor's freedom, he above all focused on the structure of the social system where the action develops and on the functions (adaptation, pursuance of goals, integration and stability) that the action is supposed to fulfil.

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 737