Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Posted 11-04-2009 14:19

    Although I agree that there is a risk that some individuals will attempt to avoid personal responsibility by anthropomorphising groups and organizations, I also think there are some important reasons to study groups and organizations as entities, as discussed in Sandelands, Lloyd E. and St. Clair, Lynda.  (1993).  Toward an Empirical Concept of Group. The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 23(4): 423-458.

    To me, this is a perfect example of a situation where there are benefits to both ways of looking at groups and organizations and I think it is a mistake to assume that only one of those ways can be correct.

    -- Lynda St. Clair
    Bryant University
    Smithfield, Rhode Island

    Contact information during 2009-2010 sabbatical:
    5116 Rock House Road
    Las Cruces, New Mexico  88011
    575-522-5159

     

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of OB automatic digest system [LISTSERV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:56 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Academy of Management Lists

    OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Table of contents:

    1. Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Ina Freeman <ina.freeman@GMAIL.COM>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Gerhard Fink <Gerhard.Fink@WU.AC.AT>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Moreland, Richard L" <cslewis@PITT.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Roger Manley <rmanley@FIT.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Blanco, R Ivan" <rb39@TXSTATE.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Gazi Islam <gazifunk@HOTMAIL.COM>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Reeshad Dalal <rdalal@GMU.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Boal, Kim" <kim.boal@TTU.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Moreland, Richard L" <cslewis@PITT.EDU>

    Browse the OB online archives.


  • 2.  OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Posted 11-04-2009 16:52

    I agree with Lynda St, Clair that it is good to study groups and organizations--but I disagree that it is proper to study them as entities--because they are not--they are abstractions--if you argue for example, that "the group believes x" you are really saying that the members of the group believe X--otherwise the statement has no coherent meaning.
    Similarly, if you say that a group is cohesive, you are saying that the members, in some way, are psychologically close. Take away the individual members and you have nothing--literally.

    E. L.



    Edwin A. Locke
    Dean's Professor of Leadership and Motivation (Emeritus)
    Robert H. Smith School of Business
    32122 Canyon Ridge Drive
    Westlake Village, CA 91361
    818 706 9361 (in CA) TEL
    same FAX
    elocke@rhsmith.umd.edu
    http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu
    http://edwinlocke.com
    Lynda St Clair <lstclair@BRYANT.EDU>



    To

    OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

    cc


    Subject

    Re: [OB-LIST] OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

        Although I agree that there is a risk that some individuals will attempt to avoid personal responsibility by anthropomorphising groups and organizations, I also think there are some important reasons to study groups and organizations as entities, as discussed in Sandelands, Lloyd E. and St. Clair, Lynda. (1993). Toward an Empirical Concept of Group. The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 23(4): 423-458.
        To me, this is a perfect example of a situation where there are benefits to both ways of looking at groups and organizations and I think it is a mistake to assume that only one of those ways can be correct.
        -- Lynda St. Clair
        Bryant University
        Smithfield, Rhode Island

        Contact information during 2009-2010 sabbatical:
        5116 Rock House Road
        Las Cruces, New Mexico 88011
        575-522-5159


    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of OB automatic digest system [LISTSERV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
    Sent:     Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:56 PM
    To:     OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject:     OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    		Academy of Management Lists
    OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Table of contents:
      1. Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
          • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
            From:             Ina Freeman <ina.freeman@GMAIL.COM>
          • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
            From:             Gerhard Fink <Gerhard.Fink@WU.AC.AT>
          • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
            From:             "Moreland, Richard L" <cslewis@PITT.EDU>
          • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
            From:             Roger Manley <rmanley@FIT.EDU>
          • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
            From:             "Blanco, R Ivan" <rb39@TXSTATE.EDU>
          • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
            From:             Gazi Islam <gazifunk@HOTMAIL.COM>
          • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
            From:             Reeshad Dalal <rdalal@GMU.EDU>
          • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
            From:             "Boal, Kim" <kim.boal@TTU.EDU>
          • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
            From:             "Moreland, Richard L" <cslewis@PITT.EDU>


    Browse the OB online archives.




  • 3.  OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Posted 11-04-2009 17:00

    Excellent discussion!  My two cents as someone who studies climate at the unit and organizational levels of analysis.

     

    Forests are comprised of many individual trees and forests are frequently a useful level of analysis for studying issues like climate change; in this case forests can be said to "behave." The study of forests Is not useful for understanding transpiration in trees since that is something that happens in individual trees; studying forests would tell you nothing about the transpiration process in trees (though the results of transpiration can be studied using forests as the unit of analysis). The point is that the appropriate unit of theory and data is not an absolute but relative to the question of interest so there is no right or wrong level of analysis. Stull, one must be careful about the ecological fallacy, generalizing evidence from one level of analysis to another (e.g., "forests transpire..."). An equally useful metaphor (for me) is the microscope whereby depending on the power of the lens being used one sees different phenomena when looking at the "same" object, all of which exist simultaneously and none of which are "righter" than any other.

     

    Ben

     

    Benjamin Schneider, Ph.D.

    Senior Research Fellow, VALTERA

    Professor Emeritus, <u1:place u2:st="on"><u1:placetype u2:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place></u1:placetype> of <u1:placename u2:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Maryland</st1:placename></u1:placename></u1:place>

    1363 Caminito Floreo, Suite G

    <u1:place u2:st="on"><u1:city u2:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">La Jolla</st1:city></st1:place></u1:city>, <u1:state u2:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state></u1:state> <u1:postalcode u2:st="on"><st1:postalcode w:st="on">92037</st1:postalcode></u1:postalcode></u1:place>

    tel/fx: 858-488-7594

    bschneider@valtera.com

     

    VALTERA ®

    Better Organizations Through Better Science ®

    www.valtera.com

     

    <u1:city u2:st="on"><u1:place u2:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Chicago</st1:place></st1:city></u1:place></u1:city> Corporate Office:

    Valtera Corporation

    <u1:street u2:st="on"><u1:address u2:st="on"><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">1701 Golf Rd.</st1:address></st1:street></u1:address></u1:street>, 2-1100

    <u1:place u2:st="on"><u1:city u2:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Rolling Meadows</st1:city></st1:place></u1:city>, <u1:state u2:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">IL</st1:state></u1:state> <u1:postalcode u2:st="on"><st1:postalcode w:st="on">60008-4257</st1:postalcode></u1:postalcode></u1:place>

    www.valtera.com

     

    This email and attachments, if included, may contain material that is

    confidential. This material is intended for the sole use of the individual

    or entity to whom it is addressed. If you received this message in error,

    please contact the sender and delete all copies.

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lynda St Clair
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 11:19 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] <st1:place w:st="on">OB</st1:place> Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

     

    Although I agree that there is a risk that some individuals will attempt to avoid personal responsibility by anthropomorphising groups and organizations, I also think there are some important reasons to study groups and organizations as entities, as discussed in Sandelands, Lloyd E. and St. Clair, Lynda.  (1993).  Toward an Empirical Concept of Group. The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 23(4): 423-458.

    To me, this is a perfect example of a situation where there are benefits to both ways of looking at groups and organizations and I think it is a mistake to assume that only one of those ways can be correct.

    -- Lynda St. Clair
    <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Bryant</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">University</st1:placename></st1:place>
    <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Smithfield</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Rhode Island</st1:state></st1:place>

    Contact information during 2009-2010 sabbatical:
    <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">5116 Rock House Road</st1:address></st1:street>
    <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Las Cruces</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">New Mexico</st1:state>  <st1:postalcode w:st="on">88011</st1:postalcode></st1:place>
    575-522-5159

     

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of OB automatic digest system [LISTSERV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:56 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: <st1:place w:st="on">OB</st1:place> Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

     

    Academy of Management Lists

    <st1:place w:st="on">OB</st1:place> Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Table of contents:

    1. Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Ina Freeman <ina.freeman@GMAIL.COM>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Gerhard Fink <Gerhard.Fink@WU.AC.AT>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Moreland, Richard L" <cslewis@PITT.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Roger Manley <rmanley@FIT.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Blanco, R Ivan" <rb39@TXSTATE.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Gazi Islam <gazifunk@HOTMAIL.COM>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Reeshad Dalal <rdalal@GMU.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Boal, Kim" <kim.boal@TTU.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Moreland, Richard L" <cslewis@PITT.EDU>

    Browse the OB online archives.

     



  • 4.  OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Posted 11-05-2009 01:18
    The idea of level of analyses should not be confused with the concept that organisation can be held responsible for actions. When we talk of individual level of analysis we are looking at individual, in group level we are still looking at the individual ,but in a group, and in organisational level we look at groups in the entire organisation. However, the groups are still made up of individuals. In the final analysis, we are talking ot people all the time. Real people not an abstract term.
     
    Even when we talk of organisational culture being responsible for people behaving the way they did, the question arises as to who put in place the culture. Is there an organisation some where devoid of people that put the culture together? There is none that I can ever think of. In the final analysis it goes down to people. When we give life to organisation different from that it acquired because of people, we fail to hold people accountable for their actions. People hide under this to behave unethically, and blame the organisation for their actions. When we say organisation bahaves, we refer to behaviour of people in the organisation, and so people must be held accountable.
     
    Okechukwu Amah (PhD)
    Chevron


    --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Ben Schneider <BSchneider@VALTERA.COM> wrote:

    From: Ben Schneider <BSchneider@VALTERA.COM>
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 2:00 PM

    Excellent discussion!  My two cents as someone who studies climate at the unit and organizational levels of analysis.

     

    Forests are comprised of many individual trees and forests are frequently a useful level of analysis for studying issues like climate change; in this case forests can be said to "behave." The study of forests Is not useful for understanding transpiration in trees since that is something that happens in individual trees; studying forests would tell you nothing about the transpiration process in trees (though the results of transpiration can be studied using forests as the unit of analysis). The point is that the appropriate unit of theory and data is not an absolute but relative to the question of interest so there is no right or wrong level of analysis. Stull, one must be careful about the ecological fallacy, generalizing evidence from one level of analysis to another (e.g., "forests transpire..."). An equally useful metaphor (for me) is the microscope whereby depending on the power of the lens being used one sees different phenomena when looking at the "same" object, all of which exist simultaneously and none of which are "righter" than any other.

     

    Ben

     

    Benjamin Schneider, Ph.D.

    Senior Research Fellow, VALTERA

    Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland

    1363 Caminito Floreo, Suite G

    La Jolla, CA 92037

    tel/fx: 858-488-7594

    bschneider@valtera.com

     

    VALTERA ®

    Better Organizations Through Better Science ®

    www.valtera.com

     

    Chicago Corporate Office:

    Valtera Corporation

    1701 Golf Rd., 2-1100

    Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-4257

    www.valtera.com

     

    This email and attachments, if included, may contain material that is

    confidential. This material is intended for the sole use of the individual

    or entity to whom it is addressed. If you received this message in error,

    please contact the sender and delete all copies.

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lynda St Clair
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 11:19 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

     

    Although I agree that there is a risk that some individuals will attempt to avoid personal responsibility by anthropomorphising groups and organizations, I also think there are some important reasons to study groups and organizations as entities, as discussed in Sandelands, Lloyd E. and St. Clair, Lynda.  (1993).  Toward an Empirical Concept of Group. The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 23(4): 423-458.

    To me, this is a perfect example of a situation where there are benefits to both ways of looking at groups and organizations and I think it is a mistake to assume that only one of those ways can be correct.

    -- Lynda St. Clair
    Bryant University
    Smithfield , Rhode Island

    Contact information during 2009-2010 sabbatical:
    5116 Rock House Road
    Las Cruces , New Mexico   88011
    575-522-5159

     

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of OB automatic digest system [LISTSERV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:56 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

     

    Academy of Management Lists

    OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Table of contents:

    1. Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Ina Freeman <ina.freeman@GMAIL.COM>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Gerhard Fink <Gerhard.Fink@WU.AC.AT>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Moreland, Richard L" <cslewis@PITT.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Roger Manley <rmanley@FIT.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Blanco, R Ivan" <rb39@TXSTATE.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Gazi Islam <gazifunk@HOTMAIL.COM>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: Reeshad Dalal <rdalal@GMU.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Boal, Kim" <kim.boal@TTU.EDU>
      • Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations (11/04)
        From: "Moreland, Richard L" <cslewis@PITT.EDU>

    Browse the OB online archives.

     



  • 5.  OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Posted 11-05-2009 13:57
    Discussions of tne ontological status of "things" always get confusing
    because of not understanding the relation between abstractions and
    concretes. Consider Dr. Boal: Are only things that one can see and touch
    real (which I interpret to mean: perceive)? Fundamentally, yes. Consider
    gravity-- we can directly see things fall or attract and can describe this
    lawfully--if we could not see any objects move in relation to one another,
    we could not form the concept of gravity. Gravity itself. as an inferred
    force and can be measured but no formulas (laws) could be develped without
    observations. In the case of black holes, we have pictures and can measure
    energy moving in and out of the holes--this requires the senses.

    Oxford University is an abstraction: the integrated total of the buildings,
    faculty, students, library, adminsitration, courses, degress, publications
    etc. Take away the concretes that make it up and there is no university.

    Regarding my esteemed colleague Ben Schneider: forests are trees grouped
    together--so when we talk about a forest that is an abstraction referring
    to a certain collection of trees.

    Of course, we could not function as human beings at all without
    abstractions (concepts) but we must not reify concepts. Concepts are
    formed by mentally integrating sensory material (concretes) or integrating
    lower level concepts into higher level concepts-thus all valid concepts are
    reducible to the perceptual level. If not, they become "floating"
    abstractions detached from reality.--this is the major disease of
    intellectuals--far more common that heart disease or cancer.



    Edwin A. Locke
    Dean's Professor of Leadership and Motivation (Emeritus)
    Robert H. Smith School of Business
    32122 Canyon Ridge Drive
    Westlake Village, CA 91361
    818 706 9361 (in CA) TEL
    same FAX
    elocke@rhsmith.umd.edu
    http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu
    http://edwinlocke.com


  • 6.  OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Posted 11-06-2009 08:55
    Dear Ed, what we "perceive" are the consequences. This is how we infer abstractions like universities are real, much like we infer job satisfaction is real. In OB we admit all sorts of non-observables in to our theories, eg. motivation. That is why I said, scientific realist can be guilty of reification.

    Would it have any meaning to tell people "the board of regents of the university of wisconsin system on recommendation of the faculty conferred my degree?" Someone might ask who were the faculty? Did they all agree? Who was on the board? Since many boards have people on them who are not qualified to make academic judgements, who gave them the power to confer my degree? Ad nauseum.

    Kim
    ________________________________________
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Edwin Locke [elocke@RHSMITH.UMD.EDU]
    Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 12:57 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] OB Digest - 3 Nov 2009 to 4 Nov 2009 - Special issue (#2009-230)

    Discussions of tne ontological status of "things" always get confusing because of not understanding the relation between abstractions and concretes. Consider Dr. Boal: Are only things that one can see and touch real (which I interpret to mean: perceive)? Fundamentally, yes. Consider gravity-- we can directly see things fall or attract and can describe this lawfully--if we could not see any objects move in relation to one another, we could not form the concept of gravity. Gravity itself. as an inferred force and can be measured but no formulas (laws) could be develped without observations. In the case of black holes, we have pictures and can measure energy moving in and out of the holes--this requires the senses.

    Oxford University is an abstraction: the integrated total of the buildings, faculty, students, library, adminsitration, courses, degress, publications etc. Take away the concretes that make it up and there is no university.

    Regarding my esteemed colleague Ben Schneider: forests are trees grouped together--so when we talk about a forest that is an abstraction referring to a certain collection of trees.

    Of course, we could not function as human beings at all without abstractions (concepts) but we must not reify concepts. Concepts are formed by mentally integrating sensory material (concretes) or integrating lower level concepts into higher level concepts-thus all valid concepts are reducible to the perceptual level. If not, they become "floating" abstractions detached from reality.--this is the major disease of intellectuals--far more common that heart disease or cancer.



    Edwin A. Locke
    Dean's Professor of Leadership and Motivation (Emeritus)
    Robert H. Smith School of Business
    32122 Canyon Ridge Drive
    Westlake Village, CA 91361
    818 706 9361 (in CA) TEL
    same FAX
    elocke@rhsmith.umd.edu<mailto:elocke@rhsmith.umd.edu>
    http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu<http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/>
    http://edwinlocke.com<http://edwinlocke.com/>