in black and white
Main menu
Share a book About us Home
Biology Business Chemistry Computers Culture Economics Fiction Games Guide History Management Mathematical Medicine Mental Fitnes Physics Psychology Scince Sport Technics

Fraud Exprosed Whot you Dont Could Cost your company millions - Joseph W.

Joseph W. Fraud Exprosed Whot you Dont Could Cost your company millions - Wiley Publishing, 2003. - 289 p.
ISBN: 0-471-27475-5
Download (direct link): fraudexposedwhatyoudont2003.pdf
Previous << 1 .. 49 50 51 52 53 54 < 55 > 56 57 58 59 60 61 .. 147 >> Next

Since this work is oriented toward those who practice in organizations, the obvious question is “Can the organization be conceptualized as a community?” I think the answer, although difficult in spots, is “yes.” I have put forth the proposition earlier that community need not be defined solely by its most common characteristic, physical proximity. The community of Times Square is a large, unruly, and changeful thing yet, when viewed from the perspective of the
law enforcement concepts discussed in this book, it seems to behave as a community with common interests, needs, and objectives.
Most organizations today operate in multiple venues, especially if they are large. Yet, there are powerful financial, psychological, and social themes that meld them into a community of self-interest, regardless of location. We hear much of the company family and our team that does not ground itself in geographic determinants. We are all ultimately paid from the same pot and have a common interest in its security. We all look to the quasi-parental figures of corporate or organizational leadership not only as custodians of hierarchical power, but also as embodiments of what we stand for. As of this writing, much news space is being devoted to one corporate parent (Enron) that apparently was abusive toward the children, most of us do not accept or expect such behavior as the norm.
Authors Argyris and Schon have noted that, at a minimum, the factors that differentiate the organization from the actions of a mob are the ability to make decisions on behalf of the collectivity, delegation of power to act for the collectivity, and setting of boundaries between the collectivity and the rest of the world.1 Roger Harrison tells us that such an entity will have an ideology that specifies goals and values toward which the organization will be directed and by which its success will be measured; it will prescribe relationships between individuals and the organization, so that each has expectations of the other; it will indicate how behavior will be controlled within the organization; it will define which qualities and characteristics of members will be accepted or rejected; it will define the manner in which members will interact and treat each other; and it will establish methods of dealing with its external environment.2
Every organization I have been a part of, from the U.S. Army through the Federal Government to my present employer, easily meets these standards, and I suspect the vast majority of readers’ organizational homes will, as well.
We next come to the issue of reconceptualization. As we saw in each law enforcement initiative examined, it was a basic set of reconceptualizations, repeated as needed, that drove the transformation process. Reconceptualization is a de facto rejection of theories of “root cause” causation, since the very act of recon-ceptualizing would be unnecessary if they were true. Reconceptualization is an affirmative action that states, both explicitly and tacitly, that something can be done. It is an attempt to understand what the real problems are, to study how we have dealt with them in the past, and to see how we can deal with them better in the future. Our attempt to begin to see elements of community in the organization is, in and of itself, a reconceptualization.
Gareth Morgan, many years ago, offered useful thoughts about the power, utility, and inherent limitations of paradigm and metaphor in thinking about organizations. He noted, for example, that we may refer to a boxer as a “tiger” in the ring and in so doing conjure up an image of one possessed of power, speed, stealth, and fierce aggression when facing their opponent. At the same time, we understand that unlike the boxer, the tiger has four legs, black stripes on an orange back-
ground, claws, and fangs, things the boxer certainly does not. Thus the metaphor has descriptive power only because it is incomplete. Were we to describe the boxer as “man,” the metaphor is more whole, but lacking in meaning, since all boxers are by definition “men.” Likewise, to describe the boxer as “saucepan” is meaningless, since the boxer and the pan have few attributes in common. It is only when we achieve a necessary degree of overlap between the object we seek to describe and the metaphor applied to it that useful meaning is created and transmitted. As Morgan notes, “Metaphor is thus based upon but partial truth; it requires of its user a somewhat one-sided abstraction in which certain features are emphasized and others suppressed in a selective comparison.”3
The significance of such imagery is, to Morgan, that we routinely think, or perhaps do not even bother to think, about the paradigms and metaphors we both accept and apply to organizational action and our role(s) in that action. Referring to a story put forth by Mannheim about a peasant boy, raised in a remote village, having to adjust his worldview and mode of thinking to life in the city, he observes that both theorists and scientists not only have such “taken-for-granted” assumptions, but tend to have them reconfirmed by interactions with their peers and colleagues, to the point they assume a form of subconscious life of their own. It is only when some person or event challenges these “posits” can significant change even be contemplated, much less begun.4
Previous << 1 .. 49 50 51 52 53 54 < 55 > 56 57 58 59 60 61 .. 147 >> Next