Question 1
Organization theory uses rational system theory to examine the organization structure and instruments designed to achieve specific goals. The symbolic interpretation organizations focus on people’s experiences and the results. This organization believes that employees can better understand themselves and their cultures by learning symbols, objects and symbolisms. Emotional experiences are the basis of this view. This perspective allows the company to learn from and interact with cultures both within and outside of its organization. This approach reconstructs an organisation’s structure based on observations that aid in realizing organizational goals. It identifies the causes of certain outcomes and establishes processes to encourage stability in an organization.
Symbolic interpretation organisations have the characteristics of being flexible and able to respond positively to external instabilities. Personality and communication are crucial for determining employee behavior.
Institutional theory is instrumental in expounding the Symbolic-Interpretive theory. This theory examines how social, political and economic factors affect an organisation’s work environment. The 1980-1982 recession seems to be the most likely reason Corporate America has a symbolic history. This recession was the result of an oil crises that began in 1979 following the Iranian revolution. Oil supplies all over the globe were cut off, causing a spike in oil prices worldwide. Institutional theory suggests that these events were both socio-economic and political.
These rules aim to encourage and discourage behavior that is contrary to institution policies. These rules are designed to help make choices and give guidelines for behaviour that is acceptable. The foundation of society is composed of three elements: the normative, regulatory and cognitive. The regulative as well as the normative elements can be characterized by both legal formalities and societal unwritten guidelines. Institutional employees are slowly able accept normative attitudes and expectations.
You can also use ambiguity models to explain symbolic framing, which highlight the unpredictability of organizations. Ambiguity theory assumes that it is difficult to set priorities and achieve organizational goals. Departments in the organization are considered relatively autonomous and decision –making is done formally and informally. This model has unclear organizational goals and inconsistency as well as opaqueness. For companies in which employees are empowered to make decisions on their own and do not need strong leadership, these models of uncertainty can be very useful. In situations of great turmoil and rapid changes like the 1980-1982 economic recession, there will be greater ambiguity. It can be used to help separate decisions from problems. It supplants the notion of an “objective” explanation for the recession with a hotchpotch of solutions, participants, and problems that may (or may not) eventually influence decision- making.
Answer #2
Neil Fligstein noted that capitalism has historically been characterized as entrepreneurs benefiting from their businesses. This trend will eventually result in corporations, today where most corporate ownership is held by institutional investors and banks. Managerial entanglements have been responsible for many economic crises such as the 2000 dotcom bust and 1980’s collapse of junk-bond markets. Karen Ho illustrates the impact of finance on the economic booms, busts and crashes to show the need for a questioning of the concept of an abstraction market. Ho outlines the profound effect of Wall Street investment bankers have on the volatility of fiancé capitalism despite its irrefutable dominance. The ethnographic data she used to inform her research was based on the experiences of underemployed senior analysts at elite universities and career managers. Her hypothesis is that Wall Street bankers see the economy through the lens of their jobs.
Wall Street is the favorite destination for Ivy League students. A strong affiliation with the school they attended is a key factor in their reputation, credibility, influence, and respect. Ho shows Wall Street bankers’ attitude is influenced by the security of their jobs, their academic achievements and the pay they get. Ho attempts to demonstrate shareholder value using an analytical strategy. Wall Street uses this strategy to strengthen its structures and interests. These structures together with their positions of privilege cause them to associate employee liquidity with value and efficiency and have total disregard for other stakeholders – employees, customers, communities, etc. She mentions the system of compensation which encourages liquidity and expediency, which is damaging to shareholder value. She effectively relates the relationship between investment bankers’ market conceptualizations with their values and attitudes as well as the resulting influence on the economy. Wall Street could have contributed to the shaping of America’s economy by its adoption of globalization and capitalized orders. This is despite a glaring conflict linking investment banker’s bonuses to their claims of creating stock market value for clients, sometimes with profound consequences in the form of economic crises.
Wall Street wasn’t just affected by 2008-2009’s financial crisis, but it raised questions about Wall Street’s risk management abilities. This revealed the extent to which the bank’s fortunes depended on the economy. The crisis revealed a soft underbelly of hitherto “too big to fail” investment banks forcing the government to bail them out. This was a way for investment bankers to get away from strategic thinking and its importance. Ho’s perspective as a Wall Street insider lends to her credibility but also presents a weakness. Ho criticizes the culture she was part of as an elite member, raising questions about how much investment bankers are affecting her. But, she does expose the capitalistic logic behind liquidations which favor shareholders over owners. Fligstein’s analysis of American Corporations doesn’t provide any rationale for capitalism. It shows the evolution from 1870 until 1980 and how Corporations changed their competitive strategies. In 1800, monopolies were established. However, in 1900 the government intervened through antitrust laws. The result was the rise of oligopolies. In order to protect their industry and control competition, this new model saw firms create small groups of 3 to 5 companies. He shows that firm’s response to the 1930s depression was to increase market share through marketing strategies and diversify product lines. He attributes tactics such as mergers and acquisitions of the 1950 –1980s to firms’ response to government anti-trust policies post World War 2.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
