Serving The Interests Of Employees Commerce Essay Example

model by Herzberg, McGregor, and du Guy. These systems have evolved over time to become more invasive by tapping into employees' psychological sphere through corporate culture, institutionalization, and hegemony. It is important to note that there are different types of organizations with varying priorities such as non-profit, government, military, or social organizations. However, this essay will primarily focus on profit-oriented capitalist economic organizations as they are the main driving force behind modern advanced capitalist economies. The earlier definition provided states that an organization's intent is the accomplishment of a common end or set of ends. This definition applies to both profit and non-profit oriented organizations. To specify "capitalist economic organizations," they are primarily created for wealth accumulation and can be defined as well-designed and managed systems driven by norms of reason, efficiency, and effectiveness for declared intents according to modernist definitions (Hatch and Cunliffe pg 14).The central issue when discussing organizations is the struggle of economic inequality, which is deeply embedded into the fundamental aspects of a free capitalist economy. The desire for wealth accumulation drives the entire system forward, dictating labor rewards and work regulations based on competition. When an employee accepts a job offer from an employer, they surrender certain choices and rights, accepting those imposed by the organization (GREY 50). Additionally, they contribute their time, experience, and knowledge to the organization in exchange for a predetermined amount of money. Capitalist economic organizations are formed through the combination of capital owners' resources with labor to produce goods for trade. These organizations primarily aim to obtain a return on investment. In a capitalist economy, shareholders and management typically prioritize maximizing profits at minimal cost

(Willmott). As a result, regulations and policies implemented by these organizations often prioritize their interests over those of employees, leading to worker insecurity and disaffection. According to Hatch's explanation, labor is perceived as a production cost rather than a means towards achieving common goals; this creates conflicting interests between employers and employees.Capitalist economic organizations' owners always aim to boost their return on investment by reducing labor costs. They achieve this by implementing control systems and manipulating the workforce. The goal of planning, dividing, and coordinating work in a capitalist economy is to exercise power over workers through an alienating and exploitative process. This process seeks maximum productivity while minimizing expenses (Willmott pg 145). Smith and Taylor's early perspectives on labor management techniques demonstrate this exploitative and dehumanizing nature. Adam Smith argued in his influential work "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" that dividing labor enhances production, while competition among workers determines wages (XXX XX). It remains unclear whether Smith's ideas influenced future capitalist organizations as a self-fulfilling prophecy or if he merely made observations about the nature of such wealth-accumulating entities. Regardless, his theories marginalized employees by considering them mere providers of necessary power for efficient organizational functioning. Frederic Taylor further reinforced the notion that workers were replaceable and expendable with his introduction of Scientific Management in the 1880s. This approach aimed to mechanize occupations and eliminate skill requirements to maximize efficiency and create cheap labor.Employees were considered tools of the machine, and while some argue that Taylor ignored motivation issues, others argue that Scientific Management aimed to address them. Regardless, it was widely accepted that wage increases would

compensate for repetitive tasks, with favoritism and authoritarianism commonly used to boost motivation and productivity. This profit-focused approach often neglected human rights considerations as they did not evolve as rapidly as capitalist economic organizations. Capitalists took advantage of their position within Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to mistreat employees without fear of rebellion. Early stages of economic development focused on basic needs like food and shelter, temporarily overlooking higher-level needs such as social recognition and self-actualization. It is crucial to acknowledge that capitalist organizations prioritize maximizing profits and accumulating wealth. Private companies are especially driven by finding efficient ways to increase profits. These organizations prioritize their own interests over employee demands and involvement. However, this perspective changes when employees rebel and disrupt the organization's main objective of accumulating wealth.In the capitalist economy, Marx discusses the inherent conflict that arises. He emphasizes that a company's profitability is dependent on its ability to organize and control work activities. As labor represents a significant portion of production costs, capitalists exert pressure on workers to enhance efficiency and reduce expenses by implementing various forms of managerial control. Simultaneously, managers are encouraged to view labor as merely an economic resource that can be exploited.

Nevertheless, there are limitations to treating human labor as a natural resource. This approach rapidly diminishes employee motivation and emotional well-being. Workers subjected to scientific management perceive it as something foreign and degrading since it removes their individualism and restricts their creativity. Such control methods are seen as threats to their sense of identity, solidarity, and personal interests.

In response, workers began forming labor unions like the Knights of Labor shortly after Marx's works were published.They aimed to promote

ideas such as "work to rule" and employed disruptive tactics in pursuit of their objectives.Marx had already predicted the underlying reasons behind these actions.He argued that profit is generated through the combination of both labor and capital; therefore, both sides have valid claims to the surplus.Conflicts of interest arise between organizational leaders (principals and managers) and followers (employees) who strongly assert their entitlement to their respective rights. It can be argued that advancements in organizational theory, such as Human Relations Theory, are simply strategic moves by owners and managers to present a more humane use of power and control (Grey 47). The transition from scientific management is also influenced by societal changes, as evidenced by Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the human rights movements. This argument is supported by the fact that although scientific management is considered outdated and inhumane today, it remains prevalent for labor control in many parts of the world, particularly developing countries like China, Malaysia, Turkey, India etc., favored by international organizations such as Foxconn. Economic inequality and suppression of human rights in these countries enable scientific management to remain the most efficient, effective, and profitable form of labor control.

The previous definition of an organization primarily focuses on its "formal" aspects. However, there are unaddressed elements within organizations that significantly impact struggles within them; these include "informal" components related to power dynamics, individuality, and knowledge control.The text highlights that organizations can be compared to icebergs, where visible problems are just the surface and there are deeper conflicts beneath. Organizations are complex due to the individuals involved in them and should not be seen as mere systems of decision-making because they rely

on human interactions. These interactions create social constructs that are influenced by conflicting individual priorities, demands, motivations, biases, anxieties, emotional contexts, and politics. Consequently, conflict is an inevitable part of organizing. Besides the class struggle mentioned earlier, power struggles occur vertically and laterally across all levels of organizations and within different groups and subcultures. This further distances members from achieving organizational goals such as efficiency, effectiveness, and profitability. Some argue that these issues arise from employees prioritizing their own agenda over organizational goals; however, it is crucial to acknowledge that the organizational structure and environment also contribute to facilitating these struggles.The struggles within organizations have a negative impact on all members, not just between management and employees. To understand these conflicts, it is necessary to adopt a symbolic interpretivist perspective on organizations. This perspective sees organizations as socially constructed realms shaped by their members through symbolically mediated interaction. It emphasizes emotions and experiences in evaluating organizations. Conflicts related to power, identity, and knowledge are present at all levels of organizational bureaucracy due to authoritarian management practices and disciplinary power. Capitalist proprietors introduced direction to improve worker efficiency, with directors having control over labor deployment for dependability and productivity. This control represents the ideologies and interests of owners, described by Marx as "power as domination." Directors are seen as autocratic elites within organizations who receive higher wages, status, and roles compared to others. They use legitimate power within the hierarchical structure to maintain cohesion, as explained by Weber.
This text highlights the potential conflict between directors and workers within organizations. Directors aim to increase their own power compared to other members by establishing personal networks, manipulating information,

promoting loyal subordinates, and controlling decision-making processes. According to Pfeffer, individuals or departments gain power by meeting organizational demands such as high performance, unique skills, problem-solving abilities, or accessing limited resources. Power in organizations goes beyond formal hierarchies and can be attributed to personal characteristics, expertise, coercion tactics, resource control, ability to use norms for support, and chance occurrences. Power dynamics exist among individuals, groups, and subcultures when one group's actions are seen as hindering others' efforts. Robert Dahl defines power as the ability of one person to influence another's behavior against their inclination. It is clear that directors represent different interests and priorities than employees in an organization. Marx introduced concepts like Organizational Control theory, struggle theory, power theory along with McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y.Various ontologies or perspectives of organizational theory, such as Modern, Symbolic Interpretivism, and Postmodernism, can be utilized to analyze organizations based on their specific focus and context. This essay takes a "concept position" on organization that acknowledges the possibility of multiple interpretations and conflicts within organizations. The increasing recognition of terms like employee satisfaction and workplace engagement in recent years is also considered. Moreover, this essay investigates organizations that strive to minimize conflict by empowering employees and providing socio-economic incentives. It aims to determine whether these efforts are genuine or merely a subtler method of control employed by organizations. Additionally, the concept of UNITARISM will be explored.