Discussion: View Thread

I'm critiquing a research paper by a post-graduate student who has referenced a quotation from an article by Gray, Owen & Adams  (1996)  in which they anthropomorphise  "society", explaining society as "a series of social contracts between members of society and society itself". Society is a network of various kinds of linkages where people gather to do things. Society is not a conscious entity that does things of its own volition. Moreover, the things done there are transactions that occur in large numbers, at the volition of many people and institutions, motivated by a diverse array of reasons for engaging in them. People tell me what groups, societies, organisations did today, why it did that, what it is afraid of, what it is struggling to do, or what external influences are preventing it from accomplishing its intent. None of these statements is true. To re-emphasise, an organisation, group, society, or market is a place where people gather to do things, not a conscious entity that does things of its own volition that can be analysed as if it were a human being.

Any agreement, disagreement, other ideas?

Gray, R, Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and Accountability; Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Harlow: UK: Prentice-Hall Europe.



Do not accustom yourself to use big words for little matters.-Samuel Johnson
Romie F. Littrell, BA, MBA,PhD, FIAIR, An fánaí fiáin  
AUT Business School N.Z., romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz
http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/
http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/
Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell

Interesting.

 

This topic is an insight into why I concentrate my work in OB in theories of individual attitudes and behavior rather than theories of large groups and societies.

 

Although group identification seems to lead to shifts in some attitudes it doesn't mean the group is a concrete entity.  It is often found that making a decision as a member of a group that will issue a collective decision tends to lead individuals to accept a greater amount of risk than if each individual were to make the decision alone.  This shift in risk acceptance is not a group phenomenon but is rather an individual phenomenon, occurring entirely in the cognitions of individuals.  One way to discourage oneself from thinking that a collective is a concrete entity is to ask if the phenomenon you are interested could be measured by measuring it at the level of the individual.  Usually this can be readily done.  If I want to measure the "risky shift", I can assess it by measuring the risk acceptance of individual group members in the conditions of individual choice or choice leading to a group decision.  A lessening of perceived personal responsibility, an individual-level phenomenon, is probably the best explanation rather than a "group shift toward risky decision making".  No cognition is conducted by a group, only by individuals that ultimately understand that decisions will be associated with the group rather than the individual.   

 

Constructs measured at the group level, such as 'expectations of the reactions of others to my choice of behavior' (within the Theory of Planned Behavior), might be found to be expectations of the number of individuals or of how key individuals might react to the individual's choice.  It isn't a group reaction that is anticipated but the reactions of individuals in the group because the group is a non-entity--only individuals can behave in reaction to your choice.  

 

An interesting example of how the distinction between group and individual choice was strengthened as an element of Western culture can be found in the principles underlying the Nuremburg trials of the late 40's.  Although the defendents were molded into collective identities with group rituals and depersonalizing rhetoric, the prosecution grounded the trial in personal responsibility--the individuals were tried and held responsible for the harm they caused.  They were not permitted to dissociate themselves from personal responsibility for decisions handed down or fostered by group images.

 

Lately I have been introducing myself to neurological science and brain behavior as it might influence attitudes and behavior, in particular, decision making.  I think there is a lot to be learned but there are some interesting studies linking brain lesions with decision making.  One such finding is that specific brain lesions can lead to different risk behavior among gamblers.  If collective identity can increase or decrease neuronal activity in specific regions of the brain, then we have identified an influence on individual attitudes and behavior but that doesn't require the actual existence of the group, only perception of the existence of membership in the "group".  Some group phenomena may then more readily be measured by measuring the individual's brain activity or long term memory information about the "group".  

 

One question raised by my reading of brain studies is, if the brain can isolate information processing about different issues, such as visual information, into regions of the cerebrum, then is it the individual or the region that is responsible for the individual's attitudes and behaviors?  If a lesion in one region causes behavior that conflicts with the patterns of behavior arising from other portions of the brain, where does responsibility lie?  In reality, the brain is well-integrated and should not produce many inconsistencies or conflicts.  The individual has mechanisms for setting rules that integrate that behavior responsibly and we can hold the individual responsible for managing those rules.  However, when a manager divides labor among several individuals and one individual misbehaves, lying on an accounting ledger, is the entirety of the individuals responsible? The integration may or may not expose all the individuals to information about the bad choice.  Generally, we need strong evidence to accuse and this leads us to one or a few individuals.

 

So much for my 2.0 cents on a Friday.

 

David McLain

SUNY Institute of Technology