Personal Theory Style Diagnostic Essay (Sample)
 

1. The organizational theory that I find myself most attracted to as a basis for analysis is……….the Action Model.

1. The essence of this theory as I understand it is…that organizations may suffer a breakdown of structure and authority such that there may be widespread inappropriate or aberrant behavior in members. When such a situation occurs (when the organization’s social order becomes this fragile), it becomes necessary for the culture to be rebuilt through the intervention of a leader who listens, who reflects back to the people their personhood or value, and who helps the group develop again a common set of shared meanings. This theory assumes that groups or organizations communally construct the social reality in which they live and act together (that there is no external, concrete reality which they could discover or to which they could relate), and that they enact reality together according to a generic set of rules. As language has no inherent standard meaning, when these rules break down, the appropriate intervention strategy is the introduction of cultural artifacts, symbols and rituals which reestablish a patterned contact between people around which a common grammar and vocabulary is developed.

2. There are multiple events in my background, aspects of my "personality or identity," or other factors that I feel lead me to be predisposed toward this theory. First is my belief that the fostering of appropriate relationships among people is, in the long term, more important (and even more efficient) in the functioning of an organization than a task or function orientation to problem solving generally. It has been my experience as a manager that if the organizational relationships among members are healthy, even ‘impossible’ tasks—deadlines and production—become possible. Second is my predisposition to see the world holistically in terms of interconnection rather than in linear terms. While this factor can just as easily apply to all four ‘interpretivist’ models, I have found it most readily applicable in my practice in this model. Thirdly, I believe my experience as a woman and a mother translated into this approach to the organizational problems I have faced as a manager. The ‘feminine’ characteristics of patience, nurturance, and investment in developing meaning in the family generally make this a more comfortable approach to management for women than for men.

II.    The organization theory that I find myself least attracted to is…the Rational Model. (While I find most functionalist approaches less than perfectly compatible with my ‘style,’ this one holds the least appeal for me as a general tool.)

1. The essence of this theory as I understand it is…that organizations are best explained by the structure of decision premises peculiar to their circumstances and that the lifeblood of the organization is the flow of information. The Rational Model assumes that people in organizations attempt rationality, but are unable to access all possible information pertinent to a decision, and even if they could, are unable to process this much information in their decision processes. Therefore, the organization establishes boundaries to bring information under control—permitting only the most relevant information to bear. Information relevance is determined in the set of decision premises held by the organization. This leads to satisficing decisions—those that are ‘good enough’—and allows the organization to ignore the complex array of information outside the boundary. The advantage of the Rational Model as an approach to the problem in an organization is that when this model is applicable to the source of the problem, the ‘fix’ is relatively easy. Changing the amount, variety, and timing of information—when these remedies are called for—can produce almost instantaneous positive results. The overwhelming disadvantage of this approach (from my perspective) is its cold impersonality.

2. The events in my background, aspects of my ‘personality or identity,’ or other factors that I feel lead me to be predisposed away from this theory…include my belief that tightly bounded systems are dysfunctional in the long term in that they exclude the variety and diversity necessary for adaptation and growth. While complexity can be challenging and frightening to those who have invested themselves in a search for control, it is the stuff of innovation and creativity. While making decisions based on the assumption of certain cause-and-effect relationships leads to quicker action, it also leads, in my experience, to a set of unanticipated, often negative, consequences of the actions taken, My belief in the value of humanity in the organization is outraged, as well, in a model which denigrates human beings because they are imperfect information processors. The Rational Model brings to the forefront the question: "If not for people, for a better society, then for whom does a rational system exist?" Efficient means to some specified ends only have significance when that question is answered.

1. What would be the most characteristic errors in organizational analysis and action that a person holding my theory preference would make?

1. What would such a person tend to project into or onto organizational situations? A person holding my interpretive theory preferences would tend to project symptoms of human relationship problems and lack of shared meaning onto problems which are actually problems of structure and authority. We would attempt to ‘heal’ the culture where the addition of some structural role or better information process would more quickly and better solve the presenting problem. We would tend, as well, to minimize such impersonal entities as task, production, and rational efficiency in our management plans in favor of networking, coaching, and strengthening both the individuals and their interrelationships in our departments or agencies.

2. What would such a person tend not to see in organizational situations? Persons with my theory preferences would tend not to see the influence of structure, information, ego, and power on organizational behavior. As these are often real causes of presenting problems and are amenable to appropriate intervention, our tendency to frame problems in terms of relationship and human factors could very well lead to interventions which only make the problems worse. A person, for example, who defines all problems in terms of culture, is singularly ill-equipped to make appropriate political responses, and thus often permits political problems to escalate to ‘unsolvable’ levels. This could perhaps be described as an idealistic naivete which drives many creative people out of management in public agencies—their failures to negotiate the political environment are often spectacular and dramatic. Persons such as myself might also overlook the possibilities of structural or informational solutions which are relatively easy to effect and bring quick results in favor of culture-changing activities which require considerable time and effort. If the problem is not culture, this is wasted time and effort.

3. An example of a frequently occurring situation and the mistaken action that such a person would take is… Situations where poor information is the core problem often present symptoms which have the appearance of interpersonal relationship problems. A clerical worker, who is responsible for answering client questions may not have, in readily accessible form, the information (s)he needs to fulfill this kind of task. The clerk may have to attempt to get the information from the ‘expert’ who has it or refer the call to the expert, and this person may not be available at all times when needed. Trust and mutual respect erode. Resentment builds up between the clerk and the expert and is displayed in terms of their communication with each other and with others in the department. A manager with my theory preference might try to ‘heal’ the relationship by way of bringing the two together to "talk out their interpersonal problems." Since their problem did not arise out of their relationship in the first place, this solution would only make the situation worse. The appropriate Rational Theory solution would be to have the expert formulate reference material for the clerk to use in dealing with client inquiries. Establishing some set of correct answers and rules for when to refer a call directly to the expert would assure the clerk that (s)he would be able to creditably perform his or her tasks, and would assure the expert that (s)he would not be interrupted for trivial or routine questions. There would, then, be no basis for any inappropriate interpersonal behavior between them to occur.