Discussion: View Thread

Expand all | Collapse all

Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

  • 1.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-03-2009 16:43


    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



  • 2.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 01:17
    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman

    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
    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




  • 3.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 02:28
    Hi Romie,
    you are perfectly right. There is no conscious gathering of people to conclude social contracts among themselves and no social contract between society and individuals who belong to a society.
    People are born into a society with out any other choice or migrate into another society without any contract. Society does nothing on its own. Action is taken by individuals. Nevertheless, in limited liability companies action is taken by individuals with limited liability in the name of organizations. That has become a crucial issue, as Stephen R. Barley; Stanford University, clearly writes in many of his publications. But, again, there is no social contract, but power is (mis)used to pursue interests. See also David Boje, about the 'ENRON Meta-Theatre'.
    regards
    Gerhard

    Romie Littrell schrieb:
    88642.88541.qm@web51108.mail.re2.yahoo.com" type="cite">


    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


    --

     

    Dr. Gerhard Fink

    Univ.-Prof. in Pension

     

    vormals
    Jean Monnet Professor

    EuropaInstitut

    (Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence)
    WU Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien
    Althanstrasse 39-45, A- 1090 Wien
     
    Tel.: (+43 1) 31336-4137
    Fax.: (+43 1) 31336-90-4137
    E-Mail: gerhard.fink@wu.ac.at<u3:p></u3:p>

    <u3:p> </u3:p>

    You can access my papers on the Social Science network (SSRN):

    http://ssrn.com/author=92836



  • 4.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 07:43

    Hi:  I think that's a narrow-minded viewpoint.  We often use metaphors in science to help clarify things, and using an individual or organism metaphor for an organization is often helpful.  We went through this same issue years ago in the world of small groups research (my world), where journal editors would come down hard on any author who seemed to be "reifying" the notion of a group.  Do groups (organizations) actually exist, in the sense that a person exists?  Well, you can't see, hear, or touch them directly, yet you can detect their impact on a person's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.  Thus, they are no more mystical or "unreal" than such concepts as attitudes, the self, motives, or personality traits, all of which psychologists happily study every day.

         I recall vaguely a paper published several years ago by a well-known organizational psychologist on the benefits and risks of thinking about organizations as individuals.  Unfortunately, I can't recall (I'm getting old) exactly who wrote the paper.  Maybe Barry Staw?

         Good luck.

     

         -dick moreland-

     

    From: <st1:personname w:st="on">Organizational Behavior Division Listserv</st1:personname> [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Romie Littrell
    Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:43 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    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: <st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region>: Prentice-Hall <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place>.

    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

     



  • 5.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 10:02

    Hi Dick!

    I remember an article by Herb Simon in the Administrative Science Quarterly, (vol . 9, June 1964, pp. 1-22) in which he addressed this topic.  Wow, I remembered the author, the title and the journal; however, I had to look up the page numbers.  Cheers!  Roger

     

    T. Roger Manley, PhD

    Professor of Management and

      Organizational Psychology

    College of Business, Florida Institute of Technology

    150 W. University Blvd.

    Melbourne, FL 32901-6975

    Phone: 321.674.7373

    Fax: 321.674.8896

    Email: rmanley@fit.edu

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Moreland, Richard L
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:43 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    Hi:  I think that's a narrow-minded viewpoint.  We often use metaphors in science to help clarify things, and using an individual or organism metaphor for an organization is often helpful.  We went through this same issue years ago in the world of small groups research (my world), where journal editors would come down hard on any author who seemed to be "reifying" the notion of a group.  Do groups (organizations) actually exist, in the sense that a person exists?  Well, you can't see, hear, or touch them directly, yet you can detect their impact on a person's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.  Thus, they are no more mystical or "unreal" than such concepts as attitudes, the self, motives, or personality traits, all of which psychologists happily study every day.

         I recall vaguely a paper published several years ago by a well-known organizational psychologist on the benefits and risks of thinking about organizations as individuals.  Unfortunately, I can't recall (I'm getting old) exactly who wrote the paper.  Maybe Barry Staw?

         Good luck.

     

         -dick moreland-

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Romie Littrell
    Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:43 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    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

     



  • 6.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 11:10

    Colleagues,

     

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so.  I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Ivan

     

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman

    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

    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

     

     



  • 7.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 11:39

    Hi:  There is, in fact, a small literature on how the perceived entitativity of a group (see Campbell's classic 1958 paper on entitativity judgments) affects how guilty a member of the group seems when he or she commits a wrongful act.  The general argument is that the higher the group's entitativity, the less culpable the miscreant seems, because the group may have contributed to his or her misbehavior (via the processes of omission – failing to do anything to prevent the misdeed- or commission – somehow encouraging the misdeed-).  Some relevant papers are listed below, if you are interested in this...

     

    Denson, Lickel, Curtis, & Stenstrom (2006) in the journal Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

    Lickel, Schmader, Curtis, & Scamier (2005) in the journal Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

    Lickel, Schmader, & Hamilton (2003) in the journal Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin

     

    There are more papers of this kind out there, but these might get you started.  Enjoy.

     

         -dick moreland-

     

    From: <st1:personname w:st="on">Organizational Behavior Division Listserv</st1:personname> [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Blanco, R Ivan
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 11:10 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    Colleagues,

     

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so.  I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Ivan

     

     

     

    From: <st1:personname w:st="on">Organizational Behavior Division Listserv</st1:personname> [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman

    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

    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: <st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region>: Prentice-Hall <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place>.

    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

     

     



  • 8.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 11:45
    Hello All,
     
    It seems this discussion is going on several lists simultaneously, but since all the comments seem to be on this list, I am moving my comment here.. I think that the most obviously relevant article here was James et al's response to Glick in AMR in the 80´s:
     
    James, L. R, W.F. Joyce & J.W. Slocum Jr. 1988. Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13, 129-132
     
    It looks like most of the comments have squarely backed James et al. position that people are ultimately the only actors in social systems.  This does not seem at all to me an obvious conclusion, particularly in the light of <st1:place w:st="on">OB</st1:place>'s increasing focus on multi-level issues and group level phenomena.  Why could we not treat groups or social systems as actors?  Is there any way to empirically answer the question of the "correct" level for attributing actorhood, or is the preference for individuals simply an unquestioned premise?
     
    BTW, there are many divergent literatures that mention this topic - this below article, in my opinion, is particularly good!
     

    Meyer, J.W. & Jepperson, R.L.  2000. The 'Actors' of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency. Sociological Theory 18, 100–120.

     
    Kind Regards,
    Gazi Islam
    Associate Professor Insper São Paulo
     
     
     

     
    Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:09:53 -0600
    From: rb39@TXSTATE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

    Colleagues,

     

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so.  I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Ivan

     

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman

    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

    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

     

     


    Un avatar à votre image ? Créez votre mini-moi !


  • 9.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 12:17
    I'm glad to see some discussion of this issue. I would add that, in my opinion, we should also tread a bit carefully when discussing topics such as "group mind," "team personality," "organizational satisfaction," etc. This obviously isn't to say that we shouldn't study such topics, but simply that we should try be to a bit more aware of the implications of our wording choices. Emergent phenomena at levels of analysis above the individual are certainly important and interesting, but, these phenomena notwithstanding, it is ultimately only individuals who think, feel and act.

    Just my two cents.  :)

    -Reeshad


    Blanco, R Ivan wrote:
    EE31DAF2DA2A6B49A42421024CF4703CCA9A0969D7@BOBCATMAIL4.matrix.txstate.edu" type="cite">

    Colleagues,

     

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so.  I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Ivan

     

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman

    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

    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

     

     


    --   Reeshad S. Dalal, PhD Industrial/Organizational Psychology George Mason University rdalal@gmu.edu


  • 10.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 12:54

    Dear Ivan, perhaps you are old enough to remember when Ford Motor was tried and I think convicted of Manslaughter in Indiana for producing the Ford  Pinto.  No executives were prosecuted as I remember.   Now, clearly the punishment is much different for corporations than people.  However, the culture of an organization can clearly contribute to the likelihood that individuals will engage in unethical/illegal behavior, witness Enron.  Who do you hold responsible for the organization's culture?  To say the leader seems too simple an answer, though sometimes we use them as a scapegoat.  But clearly, someone or something (!) is responsible and needs to be held accountable.  If the behavior originates because of the organization's policies/structure/culture/reward structure, etc.  then it seems reasonable to hold the collective responsible, that is the organization.

     

    Recall, the Iron Law of Social Responsibility, "those who fail to use their power in a socially responsible manner, will have their power taken away from them."  We hold corporations responsible all the time, and take their freedom away when they abuse it.

     

    Kim Boal

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Blanco, R Ivan
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 10:10 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    Colleagues,

     

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so.  I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Ivan

     

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman

    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

    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

     

     



  • 11.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 14:11
    Kim, I am constantly reminding my students that organizations are inanimate; organizations have life, are animate, because of the people that inhabit them.   OB is the behavior of humans within the organization, not the organization as an entity separate from the persons within it.  Thus, when it comes to accountability, we have to hold people responsible: managers, directors, stockholders, et al.  If the freedom of an organization is taken away because of abuses, it is the people within the organization that suffer, not the organization.
     
    Respectfully,
     
    Karl Strandberg
     
    -------Original Message-------
     
    From: Boal, Kim
    Date: 11/4/2009 10:47:45 AM
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
     

    Dear Ivan, perhaps you are old enough to remember when Ford Motor was tried and I think convicted of Manslaughter in Indiana for producing the Ford  Pinto.  No executives were prosecuted as I remember.   Now, clearly the punishment is much different for corporations than people.  However, the culture of an organization can clearly contribute to the likelihood that individuals will engage in unethical/illegal behavior, witness Enron.  Who do you hold responsible for the organization’s culture?  To say the leader seems too simple an answer, though sometimes we use them as a scapegoat.  But clearly, someone or something (!) is responsible and needs to be held accountable.  If the behavior originates because of the organization’s policies/structure/culture/reward structure, etc.  then it seems reasonable to hold the collective responsible, that is the organization.

     

    Recall, the Iron Law of Social Responsibility, “those who fail to use their power in a socially responsible manner, will have their power taken away from them.”  We hold corporations responsible all the time, and take their freedom away when they abuse it.

     

    Kim Boal

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Blanco, R Ivan
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 10:10 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    Colleagues,

     

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so.  I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Ivan

     

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman

    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

    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

     

     

     


  • 12.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 14:27

    The reason groups and organizations are not actors is because they are abstractions--they are groups of individuals who work together toward common goals or values. The evidence: direct perception. Groups are composed of individuals and their bodies and minds are not interconnected. 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
    Gazi Islam <gazifunk@HOTMAIL.COM>



    To

    OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

    cc


    Subject

    Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Hello All,

    It seems this discussion is going on several lists simultaneously, but since all the comments seem to be on this list, I am moving my comment here.. I think that the most obviously relevant article here was James et al's response to Glick in AMR in the 80´s:

    James, L. R, W.F. Joyce & J.W. Slocum Jr. 1988. Comment: Organizations do not cognize.     Academy of Management Review, 13, 129-132

    It looks like most of the comments have squarely backed James et al. position that people are ultimately the only actors in social systems. This does not seem at all to me an obvious conclusion, particularly in the light of OB's increasing focus on multi-level issues and group level phenomena. Why could we not treat groups or social systems as actors? Is there any way to empirically answer the question of the "correct" level for attributing actorhood, or is the preference for individuals simply an unquestioned premise?

    BTW, there are many divergent literatures that mention this topic - this below article, in my opinion, is particularly good!

    Meyer, J.W. & Jepperson, R.L. 2000. The 'Actors' of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency. Sociological Theory 18, 100–120.


    Kind Regards,
    Gazi Islam
    Associate Professor Insper São Paulo





    Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:09:53 -0600
    From: rb39@TXSTATE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

    Colleagues,

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so. I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

    Thanks,

    Ivan




    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent:     Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To:     OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject:     Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman
    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

    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


    Un avatar à votre image ? Créez votre mini-moi !



  • 13.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 16:34
    Edwin, I would argue that organizations do not have bodies and minds, save for the individuals that are related.
     
    Respectfully,
     
    Karl Strandberg 
     
    -------Original Message-------
     
    Date: 11/4/2009 1:28:40 PM
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
     

    The reason groups and organizations are not actors is because they are abstractions--they are groups of individuals who work together toward common goals or values. The evidence: direct perception. Groups are composed of individuals and their bodies and minds are not interconnected. 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
    Gazi Islam <gazifunk@HOTMAIL.COM>



    To
    OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

    cc

    Subject
    Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Hello All,

    It seems this discussion is going on several lists simultaneously, but since all the comments seem to be on this list, I am moving my comment here.. I think that the most obviously relevant article here was James et al's response to Glick in AMR in the 80´s:

    James, L. R, W.F. Joyce & J.W. Slocum Jr. 1988. Comment: Organizations do not cognize.     Academy of Management Review, 13, 129-132

    It looks like most of the comments have squarely backed James et al. position that people are ultimately the only actors in social systems. This does not seem at all to me an obvious conclusion, particularly in the light of OB's increasing focus on multi-level issues and group level phenomena. Why could we not treat groups or social systems as actors? Is there any way to empirically answer the question of the "correct" level for attributing actorhood, or is the preference for individuals simply an unquestioned premise?

    BTW, there are many divergent literatures that mention this topic - this below article, in my opinion, is particularly good!

    Meyer, J.W. & Jepperson, R.L. 2000. The 'Actors' of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency. Sociological Theory 18, 100–120.


    Kind Regards,
    Gazi Islam
    Associate Professor Insper São Paulo

    Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:09:53 -0600
    From: rb39@TXSTATE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

    Colleagues,

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so. I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

    Thanks,

    Ivan




    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent:     Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To:     OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject:     Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman
    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

    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

    Un avatar à votre image ? Créez votre mini-moi !

     


  • 14.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-04-2009 17:23
    Dear Karl, In a book chapter(Order is free: On the ontological status of organizations. Point/Counter Point: Debates.... Oxford, UK, Blackwell), we (the late Jerry Hunt, Steve Jaros, and I) start off by asking and asserting the following:

    There is an old story about a young man, who on visiting England was told he must “see” Oxford University. On returning from his visit, he was asked what he thought of Oxford University. He reported that while he had seen trees, rocks, people, and buildings, but he did not “see” Oxford University. Is Oxford University not real? Are only things that one can see and touch real? What about quarks, black holes, and gravity? What about organizations? On what basis can we conclude that they are real? We argue that organizations, like trees, rocks and gravity are real: All are real in their consequences.

    Thus, those, who like me, take a scientific realist perspective can be guilty of reification as we admit non-observatables into our theories. We defend our perspective against other perspectives, eg., post modernism. But please don't confuse us with positivist as is traditionally done.

    Kim
    ________________________________________
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Karl Strandberg [modecon@EARTHLINK.NET]
    Sent: Wednesday, Novembtiveer 04, 2009 1:11 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Kim, I am constantly reminding my students that organizations are inanimate; organizations have life, are animate, because of the people that inhabit them. OB is the behavior of humans within the organization, not the organization as an entity separate from the persons within it. Thus, when it comes to accountability, we have to hold people responsible: managers, directors, stockholders, et al. If the freedom of an organization is taken away because of abuses, it is the people within the organization that suffer, not the organization.

    Respectfully,

    Karl Strandberg

    -------Original Message-------

    From: Boal, Kim<mailto:kim.boal@TTU.EDU>
    Date: 11/4/2009 10:47:45 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Dear Ivan, perhaps you are old enough to remember when Ford Motor was tried and I think convicted of Manslaughter in Indiana for producing the Ford Pinto. No executives were prosecuted as I remember. Now, clearly the punishment is much different for corporations than people. However, the culture of an organization can clearly contribute to the likelihood that individuals will engage in unethical/illegal behavior, witness Enron. Who do you hold responsible for the organization’s culture? To say the leader seems too simple an answer, though sometimes we use them as a scapegoat. But clearly, someone or something (!) is responsible and needs to be held accountable. If the behavior originates because of the organization’s policies/structure/culture/reward structure, etc. then it seems reasonable to hold the collective responsible, that is the organization.

    Recall, the Iron Law of Social Responsibility, “those who fail to use their power in a socially responsible manner, will have their power taken away from them.” We hold corporations responsible all the time, and take their freedom away when they abuse it.

    Kim Boal

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Blanco, R Ivan
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 10:10 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Colleagues,

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so. I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

    Thanks,

    Ivan


    [cid:8651FAFD-3CE8-4BF4-A89B-1F66AF22E200]

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman
    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz<mailto:littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz>> wrote:
    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<mailto: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







    [cid:2E96E210-F039-4459-B377-16C105C60AAF]<http://www.incredimail.com/?id=603341&rui=104440663>


  • 15.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-05-2009 01:05

    Kim,

     

    That's a great example. Of course I remember it, but not because I am that old! J I see this Ford Pinto case as a perfect example of prosecutorial laziness! The courts sanctioned the company, and no individual employee received any punishment.  Now, if the investigators had done their job and gone through the painful task of establishing responsibilities, I am sure they would have found the designers and engineers responsible for the car, the executives who approved the project and its production, and the executives who approved the sale of a defective product.  Of course, the punishment for the organization is different than for individual members. As in this case, it does not matter how stiff the penalties are for organizations.  They don't suffer at all, because they do not feel remorse, do not feel the pain, and don't even learn from these experiences.  Yes, "behavior originates because of the organization's policies/structure/culture/reward structure, etc.," but all of these organizational processes or components are created by the members, who modify by them, and enforced them too. And if we held those individuals responsible for organization's "actions" (which are actions by individuals), then policies, structures, the culture, and the reward systems will all change too and hopefully for the better.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Ivan

     

    Dr. R. Ivan Blanco                                                
    Department of Management
    McCoy College of Business Administration 
    Texas State Univeristy - San Marcos
    San Marcos, TX 78666
    Voice (512) 245-1842  -  Fax (512) 245-2850 
    E-mail  rb39@txstate.edu
     
    "Las naciones marchan hacia el término de su grandeza, con el mismo paso que camina su educación."
    "Nations march toward their greatness at the same pace as their educational systems evolve." -- Simon Bolivar

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Boal, Kim [kim.boal@TTU.EDU]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 11:53 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Dear Ivan, perhaps you are old enough to remember when Ford Motor was tried and I think convicted of Manslaughter in Indiana for producing the Ford  Pinto.  No executives were prosecuted as I remember.   Now, clearly the punishment is much different for corporations than people.  However, the culture of an organization can clearly contribute to the likelihood that individuals will engage in unethical/illegal behavior, witness Enron.  Who do you hold responsible for the organization's culture?  To say the leader seems too simple an answer, though sometimes we use them as a scapegoat.  But clearly, someone or something (!) is responsible and needs to be held accountable.  If the behavior originates because of the organization's policies/structure/culture/reward structure, etc.  then it seems reasonable to hold the collective responsible, that is the organization.

     

    Recall, the Iron Law of Social Responsibility, "those who fail to use their power in a socially responsible manner, will have their power taken away from them."  We hold corporations responsible all the time, and take their freedom away when they abuse it.

     

    Kim Boal

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Blanco, R Ivan
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 10:10 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    Colleagues,

     

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so.  I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Ivan

     

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman

    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

    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

     

     



  • 16.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-05-2009 02:24
    Interesting discussion!

    Perhaps we should also read integrate Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory? According to this theory not only human beings can be or serve as actors.

    Finn Frandsen

    Professor, Director
    ASB Centre for Corporate Communication (ASBccc) (www.asb.dk/corpcom)
    Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University
    Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210 Aarhus V
    + 45 89 48 62 68 (office)
    + 45 26 27 60 49 (cell phone)
    Denmark




    On 04.11.2009 20:26, "Edwin Locke" <elocke@RHSMITH.UMD.EDU> wrote:

    The reason groups and organizations are not actors is because they are abstractions--they are groups of individuals who work together toward common goals or values. The evidence: direct perception. Groups are composed of individuals and their bodies and minds are not interconnected.  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 <mailto:elocke@rhsmith.umd.edu>
    http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu <http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/>
    http://edwinlocke.com <http://edwinlocke.com/>
    Gazi Islam <gazifunk@HOTMAIL.COM>


      To
      OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
      cc
      Subject
      Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

      Hello All,

      It seems this discussion is going on several lists simultaneously, but since all the comments seem to be on this list, I am moving my comment here.. I think that the most obviously relevant article here was James et al's response to Glick in AMR in the 80´s:
       
      James, L. R, W.F. Joyce & J.W. Slocum Jr. 1988. Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13, 129-132
       
      It looks like most of the comments have squarely backed James et al. position that people are ultimately the only actors in social systems.  This does not seem at all to me an obvious conclusion, particularly in the light of OB's increasing focus on multi-level issues and group level phenomena.  Why could we not treat groups or social systems as actors?  Is there any way to empirically answer the question of the "correct" level for attributing actorhood, or is the preference for individuals simply an unquestioned premise?
       
      BTW, there are many divergent literatures that mention this topic - this below article, in my opinion, is particularly good!
       
      Meyer, J.W. & Jepperson, R.L.  2000. The 'Actors' of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency. Sociological Theory 18, 100–120.


      Kind Regards,
      Gazi Islam
      Associate Professor Insper São Paulo

       
       

       
      Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:09:53 -0600
      From: rb39@TXSTATE.EDU
      Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations
      To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

      Colleagues,
       
      This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so.  I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.
       
      Thanks,
       
      Ivan
       
       


      From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
      Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
      To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
      Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

      This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

      Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
      Ina Freeman
      On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz       <mailto:littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> > wrote:

      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       <mailto:romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz>
      http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/       <http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/>
      http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/       <http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/>
      Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
      Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell
       


      Un avatar à votre image ? Créez votre mini-moi ! <http://www.ilovemessenger.fr/minimize-me>



    --
    The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.


  • 17.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-05-2009 04:05
    Dear Romie,

    I carefully followed the discussion and I think most of what could be
    said was already posted, however let me share some more thoughts with
    you:

    The question of whether an organization or society can be treated as a
    separate unit, detached from individuals seems clearly to be 'no'. In
    law you may find paragraphs that allow the conclusion that
    organizations can be separate legal entities, nevertheless - as
    already mentioned before by others - behavior is set by individuals
    who are working in an organization.

    Thus, it seems as if organizations and societies can not behave on
    their own, but might show different patterns of behaviors compared to
    individuals. Behavior of individuals may severely deviate from
    behavior of a group, organization or society. Just think about the
    Abiline Paradox (Harvey, 1974) as an example, where a group or team
    comes to a decision, which each individual would have never made. But
    still, by tracing back organizational and societal phenomena, we will
    find individuals as the source of behavior / of an observed phenomenon.

    In conclusion, while organizations and societies may behave in
    different ways as individuals would do, OB and societal behavior is
    routed in individual behavior. Thus, individual behavior,
    organizational behavior, group behavior, etc. and interactions between
    this 'actors' make up what we call society, but it seems clear that
    organizations/groups/etc. would not be able to behave without
    individuals. But still, there has to be made a difference between
    individual behavior and group behavior. Finally, this is one of the
    reasons why it is of importance to investigate in behavior considering
    different levels of analysis.

    In view of the above, it might be useful to define organization and
    society as follows:

    The terms 'organization' and 'society' are synonyms for complex
    decision making processes of individuals - from a behavioral
    perspective -, driven by various factors and manifested in behavior
    that might deviate from individual behavior.

    I hope this comment is also of some help for you.

    Best regards,

    Daniel



    Zitat von Romie Littrell <littrellaom@YAHOO.CO.NZ>:

    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    >


  • 18.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-05-2009 07:13

    Morgeson and Hofman's (AMR, 1999) notion of 'collective constructs' (such as organisational memory) may be a way out of the impasse.

    Essentially they argue that individuals have their own thoughts and actions but that these are reinforced, or disconfirmed and overturned, through sanctioned and permissible workgroup "interactions and event cycles". These "interactions and event cycles", through their repetition, then become the consensus among that workgroup for how to think and behave appropriately... the group's 'collective construct'. As they write, "Only through interaction does a construct acquire meaning and structure" (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999: 256).

    Workgroups then interact with each other, and the shared and accepted norms and beliefs are passed on, and reinforced, and become an institutionalised mind-set.

    We saw this happen in Enron, and many other failed organisations (Southern Water in the UK is another vivid example: colleagues may appreciate this lucid summary, and the accompanying video, which I use in my 'Introduction to OB': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7234455.stm).  

    That said, other colleagues, including Professor Litrell (the original poster), are right to remind us all that individuals do still retain a vestige of independent thought and action, even in the face of such social and cultural pressures – as the quite marvellous Sherron Watkins (the Enron whisteblower) demonstrated.

    But let's not get too pious: few of us stick our neck out, challenge prevailing standards and beliefs, and seek to disrupt internal power structures. Absent of that challenge, an organisation can, and does, act more or less uniformly.

     

    Graham Dietz, Durham University

     

     

    Morgeson, F.P., & Hofmann, D.A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24 (2): 249-265.



  • 19.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-05-2009 14:04

    I would not agree exactly with Dr. Deitz. I would argue that everyone has the capacity for independent thought, but everyone does not use it, due typically to either unwillingless to think or fear. (Incidentally, I find that intellectuals, statistically, are more conformist that any group in society). If one rejects volition, one is faced with the contradiction of determinism , viz, how do you know society did not compel you to support determinism?



    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
    Graham Dietz <graham.dietz@DURHAM.AC.UK>



    To

    OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

    cc


    Subject

    Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Morgeson and Hofman's (AMR, 1999) notion of 'collective constructs' (such as organisational memory) may be a way out of the impasse.

    Essentially they argue that individuals have their own thoughts and actions but that these are reinforced, or disconfirmed and overturned, through sanctioned and permissible workgroup "interactions and event cycles". These "interactions and event cycles", through their repetition, then become the consensus among that workgroup for how to think and behave appropriately... the group's 'collective construct'. As they write, "Only through interaction does a construct acquire meaning and structure" (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999: 256).

    Workgroups then interact with each other, and the shared and accepted norms and beliefs are passed on, and reinforced, and become an institutionalised mind-set.

    We saw this happen in Enron, and many other failed organisations (Southern Water in the UK is another vivid example: colleagues may appreciate this lucid summary, and the accompanying video, which I use in my 'Introduction to OB': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7234455.stm).  

    That said, other colleagues, including Professor Litrell (the original poster), are right to remind us all that individuals do still retain a vestige of independent thought and action, even in the face of such social and cultural pressures – as the quite marvellous Sherron Watkins (the Enron whisteblower) demonstrated.

    But let's not get too pious: few of us stick our neck out, challenge prevailing standards and beliefs, and seek to disrupt internal power structures. Absent of that challenge, an organisation can, and does, act more or less uniformly.

    Graham Dietz, Durham University

    Morgeson, F.P., & Hofmann, D.A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24 (2): 249-265.



  • 20.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-06-2009 02:09
    Hi John,
    the issue is that most theories of behavior and organization theories make rather rigid 'other things equal' assumptions. Of course, individuals are embedded into groups, organizations and societies. But, as was already written in this exchange, only individuals can set observable action. Since Fredrick W. Taylor and Max Weber (building on Durkheim) the main concern of management and organization theories was always how to make those unreliable individuals behave in a way that serves the organization. Vladimir I. Lenin was that much enthusiastic about F.W. Taylor that he had Taylor's main works translated into Russian. Lenin wrote that the future of communism is American management combined with German bureaucracy. Years later, because of the same reasons J. Stalin had Henry Ford's insights into management translated into Russian.

    There are some implicit assumptions of contract theories, among others:
    a) contracts are concluded among free individuals;
    b) contracts are binding agreements;
    c) behavior regulated by contracts is legitimate.

    Contract theory collapses as soon as we have to assume that specific sets of contracts are not binding, i.e. that some deviations from expected behavior are tolerated, some are criticized,  and some other deviations are prosecuted and penalized. If behavior is regulated by behavioral standards (e.g. values or cultural standards, etc.) which allow for some deviation from a norm (statistical distribution of patterns of behavior) we cannot reduce everything to contracts - or we need subcategories of contracts which express the same thing as values or cultural standards do.
    Values are no contracts. Values describe a rank order of desirables. Deviations from values are often necessary, because of value conflict. We cannot do everything at once. As simple example: In our societies we expect punctuality, but we also esteem  solidarity within a family and friendship. What happens if a friend needs help and you can help him only if you are not punctual with respect to another 'obligation'? In that case you make a decision, which value to follow and which not.

    To my mind contract regulated action within organizations does not substitute for ethics and not for legal action. Some indication of that can be found in the discussion about managers' high incomes during the financial crisis. Another indication in critical views about organizations. In this debate, Enron was already mentioned.
    For those interested I recommend to visit David Boje's websites, e.g.
    http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/enron/metatheatre.htm

    Stephen R. Barley from Stanford has written a lot about the impact of limited liability companies. Quote one piece:
    Stephen R. Barley; Stanford University; Corporations, Democracy, and the Public Good; Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 3, 201-215 (2007), © 2007 SAGE Publications
    e.g. Private Military firms and outsourcing the military. Limited liability companies maintain armies that fight wars for others: Military Providers, provide troops plus  ‚Air and land support';
    Military Consultants, provide strategy, analysis and training; Military Support firms, provide logistics, transportation, supply, construction and transportation.
    Outsourcing the military to private firms circumvents parliamentary control over war faring action. Why do you think, are so many private 'security firms' active in Afghanistan and Irak?
    The issue is, whether a contract between government officials and private firms can legalize action, which perhaps may not have passed parliamentary control? Many states prohibit that their citizens serve in a foreign army. But, nothing about serving in a private security firm. Thus, private firms run by early retired generals substitute for the concept of the former French Foreign Legion.
    Again, the issue is emerging whether contracts override everything: values, ethics, and democratic control. If yes, then you could have your private army and pursue your personal interest if you get a contract from your governor.

    But, back to our story: Societies, organizations, and groups try to regulate the behavior of their members by different means. Contracts are one of those, others are laws. But, most importantly the leaders (dominant groups) of societies, organizations or groups try to influence thinking and behavior of individuals with values ["Values do the job!" as Dr. John Francis "Jack" Welch had put it]. In well functioning democracies, individuals perhaps can make free decisions. However, that freedom is much less given in hierarchical organizations. The power holders decide whats right or wrong - and those with no power either comply or leave or are fired. If we can agree that such things as 'take it or leave it' decisions are not so seldom in our societies then we cannot maintain contract theory. People follow an enforced behavior what they will not continue to do when power relations change.

    Of course, the issues go much beyond that brief statement. For your information I attach a most interesting piece written by Maurice Yolles on Pathologies in Organizations. Yolles assumes a much broader perspective on organizations (and implicitly also on organizational behavior). Thus, his approach is much more complex than a 'contract theory of society'. By contrast,  he provides a model of social viable systems and pathologic systems (i.e. not functioning organizations).
    Yolles, M. (2007) 'Modelling pathologies in social collectives', European J. International Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.81–103.

    Contracts are an important part of the story, but only one part, among others.

    Kind regards
    Gerhard Fink



    John O'Dowd schrieb:

    Hello All,

     

    What a strange idea, i.e. '' is no conscious gathering of people to conclude social contracts among themselves and no social contract between society and individuals who belong to a society''. What about constitutions, elections, referenda, civil society groups, lobbying, politicking, campaigning etc etc through which explicit contracts are made not to mention the whole process of socialisation through which most of the unwritten or implied social contracts that govern our repeated behaviours are agreed? What about, for example, the behaviours of managers, employees and labour unions in unionised companies: they act in accordance with unwritten as well as written contracts that govern their behaviours.........there's no end of examples it seems to me where people in societies – are there any other kinds of people? – behave towards each other in regular and repeated patterns based on both explicit and implicit social contracts.

     

    Or am I missing the point here?

     

    Regards

     

    John O'Dowd

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gerhard Fink
    Sent: 04 November 2009 07:28
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

     

    Hi Romie,
    you are perfectly right. There is no conscious gathering of people to conclude social contracts among themselves and no social contract between society and individuals who belong to a society.
    People are born into a society with out any other choice or migrate into another society without any contract. Society does nothing on its own. Action is taken by individuals. Nevertheless, in limited liability companies action is taken by individuals with limited liability in the name of organizations. That has become a crucial issue, as Stephen R. Barley; Stanford University, clearly writes in many of his publications. But, again, there is no social contract, but power is (mis)used to pursue interests. See also David Boje, about the 'ENRON Meta-Theatre'.
    regards
    Gerhard

    Romie Littrell schrieb:

    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

     

     


     

    Dr. Gerhard Fink

    Univ.-Prof. in Pension

     

    vormals
    Jean Monnet Professor

    EuropaInstitut

    (Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence)
    WU Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien
    Althanstrasse 39-45, A- 1090 Wien
     
    Tel.: (+43 1) 31336-4137
    Fax.: (+43 1) 31336-90-4137
    E-Mail: gerhard.fink@wu.ac.at<u3:p></u3:p>

    <u3:p> </u3:p>

    You can access my papers on the Social Science network (SSRN):

    http://ssrn.com/author=92836



  • 21.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-06-2009 10:40

    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

     



  • 22.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-10-2009 18:13
    Watch this video of a large flock of starlings and decide whether you
    think the individual starlings are either incapable, unwilling or
    fearful of independent thought. I think they, like us, are cognitive
    misers by nature. Well equipped with social motives and social
    hormones to organize into groups because it frees them from the
    necessity of thinking of everything themselves. (Like this discussion
    list, perhaps?)

    Even though the flock is not a single biological entity, it still has
    observable dynamic properties that individual birds cannot be said to
    possess. What else do we call that if not behavior?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/08/300000-birds-swarm-over-
    d_n_350039.html


    On Nov 5, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Edwin Locke wrote:

    > I would argue that everyone has the capacity for independent
    > thought, but everyone does not use it, due typically to either
    > unwillingless to think or fear. (Incidentally, I find that
    > intellectuals, statistically, are more conformist that any group in
    > society). If one rejects volition, one is faced with the
    > contradiction of determinism , viz, how do you know society did not
    > compel you to support determinism?
    >
    >
    >
    > Edwin A. Locke


  • 23.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-10-2009 23:48
    Perhaps some of what we experience in the misnomer of organizational "life" comes from the terminology we use in our descriptions and depictions.How often in our writings do we see and use phrases such as " organizational response" or "organizational liability", etc.?  Even in law suits it is usually the organization that is named and not the actors within the organization whose behavior and words resulted in the litigation.   We give power to organizations and create the persona of animated entity because it suits a particular purpose.   Biblically, organizations are like idol gods, they can do nothing in and of "themselves", it is what is attributed to them by man that gives them life and power.

    Gwendolyn M. Combs, Ph.D.
    Associate Professor
    Department of Management
    274 CBA
    P. O. Box 880491
    College of Business Administration
    University of Nebraska-Lincoln
    Lincoln, Nebraska  68588-0491
    402-472-6061 (Office)
    402-472-5855 (FAX)


    "Boal, Kim" <kim.boal@TTU.EDU>
    Sent by: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>

    11/04/2009 08:40 PM

    Please respond to
    Organizational Behavior Division Listserv <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    To
    		OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    cc
    Subject
    		Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations





    Dear Karl, In a book chapter(Order is free:  On the ontological status of organizations. Point/Counter Point:  Debates....  Oxford, UK, Blackwell), we (the late Jerry Hunt, Steve Jaros, and I) start off by asking and asserting the following:

                    There is an old story about a young man, who on visiting England was told he must "see" Oxford University.  On returning from his visit, he was asked what he thought of Oxford University.  He reported that while he had seen trees, rocks, people, and buildings, but he did not "see" Oxford University.  Is Oxford University not real?  Are only things that one can see and touch real?  What about quarks, black holes, and gravity?  What about organizations?  On what basis can we conclude that they are real?  We argue that organizations, like trees, rocks and gravity are real:  All are real in their consequences.  

    Thus, those, who like me, take a scientific realist perspective can be guilty of reification as we admit non-observatables into our theories. We defend our perspective against other perspectives, eg., post modernism.  But please don't confuse us with positivist as is traditionally done.

    Kim
    ________________________________________
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Karl Strandberg [modecon@EARTHLINK.NET]
    Sent: Wednesday, Novembtiveer 04, 2009 1:11 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Kim, I am constantly reminding my students that organizations are inanimate; organizations have life, are animate, because of the people that inhabit them.   OB is the behavior of humans within the organization, not the organization as an entity separate from the persons within it.  Thus, when it comes to accountability, we have to hold people responsible: managers, directors, stockholders, et al.  If the freedom of an organization is taken away because of abuses, it is the people within the organization that suffer, not the organization.

    Respectfully,

    Karl Strandberg

    -------Original Message-------

    From: Boal, Kim<    mailto:kim.boal@TTU.EDU>
    Date: 11/4/2009 10:47:45 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<    mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Dear Ivan, perhaps you are old enough to remember when Ford Motor was tried and I think convicted of Manslaughter in Indiana for producing the Ford  Pinto.  No executives were prosecuted as I remember.   Now, clearly the punishment is much different for corporations than people.  However, the culture of an organization can clearly contribute to the likelihood that individuals will engage in unethical/illegal behavior, witness Enron.  Who do you hold responsible for the organization's culture?  To say the leader seems too simple an answer, though sometimes we use them as a scapegoat.  But clearly, someone or something (!) is responsible and needs to be held accountable.  If the behavior originates because of the organization's policies/structure/culture/reward structure, etc.  then it seems reasonable to hold the collective responsible, that is the organization.

    Recall, the Iron Law of Social Responsibility, "those who fail to use their power in a socially responsible manner, will have their power taken away from them."  We hold corporations responsible all the time, and take their freedom away when they abuse it.

    Kim Boal

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [    mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Blanco, R Ivan
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 10:10 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Colleagues,

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so.  I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

    Thanks,

    Ivan


    [    cid:8651FAFD-3CE8-4BF4-A89B-1F66AF22E200]

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [    mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman
    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz<    mailto:littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz>> wrote:
    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<    mailto: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







    [    cid:2E96E210-F039-4459-B377-16C105C60AAF]<http://www.incredimail.com/?id=603341&rui=104440663>



  • 24.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Posted 11-11-2009 12:21
    A corporation is a legal entity separate from the shareholders and employees. Corporate statutes typically empower corporations to own property, sign binding contracts, and pay taxes, sue and be sued in a capacity separate from that of its shareholders . A corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation.

    Bruce Louis RIch



    On 11/10/09 8:47 PM, "Gwendolyn M Combs" <gcombs@UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU> wrote:

    Perhaps some of what we experience in the misnomer of organizational "life" comes from the terminology we use in our descriptions and depictions.How often in our writings do we see and use phrases such as " organizational response" or "organizational liability", etc.? Even in law suits it is usually the organization that is named and not the actors within the organization whose behavior and words resulted in the litigation. We give power to organizations and create the persona of animated entity because it suits a particular purpose. Biblically, organizations are like idol gods, they can do nothing in and of "themselves", it is what is attributed to them by man that gives them life and power.

    Gwendolyn M. Combs, Ph.D.
    Associate Professor
    Department of Management
    274 CBA
    P. O. Box 880491
    College of Business Administration
    University of Nebraska-Lincoln
    Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0491
    402-472-6061 (Office)
    402-472-5855 (FAX)


    "Boal, Kim" <kim.boal@TTU.EDU>
    Sent by: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> 11/04/2009 08:40 PM

    Please respond to
    Organizational Behavior Division Listserv <OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>

    To

    OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

    cc
    Subject

    Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations




    Dear Karl, In a book chapter(Order is free: On the ontological status of organizations. Point/Counter Point: Debates.... Oxford, UK, Blackwell), we (the late Jerry Hunt, Steve Jaros, and I) start off by asking and asserting the following:

    There is an old story about a young man, who on visiting England was told he must "see" Oxford University. On returning from his visit, he was asked what he thought of Oxford University. He reported that while he had seen trees, rocks, people, and buildings, but he did not "see" Oxford University. Is Oxford University not real? Are only things that one can see and touch real? What about quarks, black holes, and gravity? What about organizations? On what basis can we conclude that they are real? We argue that organizations, like trees, rocks and gravity are real: All are real in their consequences.

    Thus, those, who like me, take a scientific realist perspective can be guilty of reification as we admit non-observatables into our theories. We defend our perspective against other perspectives, eg., post modernism. But please don't confuse us with positivist as is traditionally done.

    Kim
    ________________________________________
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Karl Strandberg [modecon@EARTHLINK.NET]
    Sent: Wednesday, Novembtiveer 04, 2009 1:11 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Kim, I am constantly reminding my students that organizations are inanimate; organizations have life, are animate, because of the people that inhabit them. OB is the behavior of humans within the organization, not the organization as an entity separate from the persons within it. Thus, when it comes to accountability, we have to hold people responsible: managers, directors, stockholders, et al. If the freedom of an organization is taken away because of abuses, it is the people within the organization that suffer, not the organization.

    Respectfully,

    Karl Strandberg

    -------Original Message-------

    From: Boal, Kim<mailto:kim.boal@TTU.EDU <mailto:kim.boal@TTU.EDU> >
    Date: 11/4/2009 10:47:45 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU <mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> >
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Dear Ivan, perhaps you are old enough to remember when Ford Motor was tried and I think convicted of Manslaughter in Indiana for producing the Ford Pinto. No executives were prosecuted as I remember. Now, clearly the punishment is much different for corporations than people. However, the culture of an organization can clearly contribute to the likelihood that individuals will engage in unethical/illegal behavior, witness Enron. Who do you hold responsible for the organization's culture? To say the leader seems too simple an answer, though sometimes we use them as a scapegoat. But clearly, someone or something (!) is responsible and needs to be held accountable. If the behavior originates because of the organization's policies/structure/culture/reward structure, etc. then it seems reasonable to hold the collective responsible, that is the organization.

    Recall, the Iron Law of Social Responsibility, "those who fail to use their power in a socially responsible manner, will have their power taken away from them." We hold corporations responsible all the time, and take their freedom away when they abuse it.

    Kim Boal

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU <mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> ] On Behalf Of Blanco, R Ivan
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 10:10 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    Colleagues,

    This is very interesting! Since I cover ethics in many of my classes, I always emphasize to my students that organizations do not go to jail for white crimes, people do! Organizations do not act unethically or illegally, it is organizational members who do so. I believe most prosecutors and courts agree with this.

    Thanks,

    Ivan


    [cid:8651FAFD-3CE8-4BF4-A89B-1F66AF22E200 <cid:8651FAFD-3CE8-4BF4-A89B-1F66AF22E200> ]

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU <mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> ] On Behalf Of Ina Freeman
    Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:17 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies, Organisations

    This runs to the same argument that organizations are capable of being citizens. If people can anthropomorphise organizations they can anthropomorphise society.

    Personally, I feel this could be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for what is done by organizations or society. The fact that people work in and run organizations does not seem to enter the equation. If we give organization citizen status, people do not have to be responsible for their irresponsible behavior. They can blame the organization or "group think" thus not being culpable for their own behavior. We are moving into very dangerous times as we relieve people of personal responsibility more and more by trying to increase the scope of who is responsible.
    Ina Freeman
    On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Romie Littrell <littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz<mailto:littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz <mailto:littrellaom@yahoo.co.nz> >> wrote:
    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<mailto:romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz <mailto:romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz> >
    http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/ <http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/>
    http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/ <http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/>
    Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
    Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell







    [cid:2E96E210-F039-4459-B377-16C105C60AAF <cid:2E96E210-F039-4459-B377-16C105C60AAF> ]<http://www.incredimail.com/?id=603341&rui=104440663 <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=603341&rui=104440663> >