Managing People in Organizations (MPIO): Revision Notes 2007

Format of the examination

The examination will be a restricted open book examination. You will be allowed to bring into the
examination, volumes 1 and 2 of the printed MPIO material, Bolman and Deal’s Reframing
Organizations and McKenna and Beech’s HRM: A Concise Introduction. You can have made your own
notes on the books but you cannot bring any other material into the examination.

The examination is in three sections. You will answer three questions.

‰ Section A consists of one compulsory question which will test your knowledge and
understanding of the “reframing” approach to analysing organizations.
‰ Section B is on Organizational Behaviour – the material contained in Volume 1 of MPIO. You
must answer one question from this section. You will choose from at least three questions.
‰ Section C is about Human Resource Management – the material contained in Volume 2 of
MPIO. You must answer one question from this section. You will choose from at least three
questions.

Section A: The reframing approach

The first (compulsory) question is intended to test your understanding of Bolman and Deal’s “reframing”
approach and how to apply it. The point about an open-book examination is that you are not being
asked to memorise aspects of the course. The emphasis is on you being able to demonstrate that you
understand the key points and you do that by answering the questions. It is important to answer the
exact question which you are asked. In order to demonstrate understanding, of course, you do need to
know the main points and arguments used in the class. Because of the need to know about the subject
matter of the class, you have to prepare for an open book exam in the same way as you would prepare
for a conventional exam. Because the emphasis is on demonstrating understanding, however, the use
of illustrations and examples is recommended. As was emphasised at the seminars, applying the
reframing approach to an organization which you know well helps to develop confidence in using the
approach and in demonstrating its value. One way to prepare is to apply the approach to events and
situations which you have experienced or witnessed and to analyse what happened by using the
reframing approach.

Ask yourself, “What insights can be gained from using the approach? How and why does the approach
help us make a better analysis?” If you can do this, not only do you help yourself understand the
reframing approach better, you can also prove to the examiners that you are just not parroting back what
is in the book; you really do understand what the approach is about. In preparing yourself for the exam,
it is more important to master how to apply the approach than to try to anticipate a particular question.

The case study Eagle Smelting in MPIO volume 1, chapter 1, illustrated the usefulness of the reframing
approach for analysing the underlying causes of the problem indicated. To prepare yourself for the
reframing question, think about your own experience of how an organisation deals with problems. What
is the frame of reference which is overtly used when addressing such issues? How does using a multi-
frame approach give a better, more informed insight into these processes?

1
In most of the recent questions, you could refer to an organization which you know well to illustrate the
relevant points, as well as referring to relevant examples in Bolman and Deal or in the MPIO notes.
Note that the early examples (case studies) in Bolman and Deal are intended to convey the complexity
of many management situations. If a question asks more specifically about reframing change or
reframing leadership, you could also use examples from organizations which you know well. In addition,
a number of the Bolman and Deal case studies address issues of change and leadership. You should
make sure that you understand and refer to some of these cases. To repeat what was said earlier, the
great advantage of using illustrations or examples is that you can demonstrate your understanding of the
issues to the examiners. You are not just repeating what the books or notes say.

The following points should help you clarify your ideas as to the reframing approach.
.
‰ Is it valid to suggest that most of the “theories” which are implicitly used in organizations all tend
to be derived from the structural frame?
‰ Is it commonly the case that when managers seek to validate and legitimise their actions, the
predominant reference point is the structural frame?
‰ How appropriate have been these “theories of management” (that is, theories based on the
structural frame) to real situations in which they have been used?
‰ Are there times when managers seem to make use of a non-structural frame, for example,
human resource, and political or symbolic frames? Are there times when greater “use” of these
non-structural frames would have been more productive than reliance on the structural frame?
‰ Is the use of a non-structural frame seen as legitimate or as an aberration?
‰ How does the use of a “framing” approach improve our understanding of a situation, compared
with the conventional use of a structural frame?
‰ Identify, if you can, situations where a conventional approach has not worked well. Could a
multi-frame analysis have helped?

The Bolman and Deal approach attempts to demonstrate that all four frames are relevant to the practice
of leadership and change. If the examples that you choose involve some aspect of change or of
leadership, this should help illustrate the value of the “reframing” approach. Conventional approaches
tend to emphasize only one or some of the frames. In particular, the political frame is largely ignored in
most conventional approaches. This is illustrated most effectively in the keynote case study in Bolman
and Deal, the Robert F. Kennedy High School. Make sure that you know and understand this case
study. In your answer to the compulsory question, you can also refer to other case studies in the
Bolman and Deal book, or in the MPIO notes, or to other examples that you think are relevant.

At various points in their book, Bolman and Deal present tables, which illustrate how the frames apply to
situations. The main ones are as follows.

‰ a preliminary overview (pages 12, 16 – 17 in the 3rd edition)

‰ reframing the organisational process (pages 306 – 7 in the 3rd edition)
‰ reframing leadership (page 349 in the 3rd edition)
‰ reframing organizational change (page 367 – 8 in the 3rd edition)
‰ reframing Robert F. Kennedy High School (page 426 in the 3rd edition)

You should make sure that you understand the content and purpose of these tables and you should
bookmark them in some way.

2
Section B: Organizational Behaviour

You have a choice of questions in this section. The questions will tend to ask you to examine the issues
which are specific to particular frames. In some cases the question may ask you to link two or more
frames or chapters. Thus, although most students will concentrate on preparing particular chapters, you
should also have a general overview of the content of all the chapters. Even where a question is fairly
specific to one chapter, your answer can often be improved by briefly referring to material from other
chapters. For example, if you are answering a “structure” question on, say, bureaucracy or on modern
restructuring towards “flatter” organizations, when you make criticisms, you could draw upon material in
the chapters on culture and leadership in MPIO Vol. 1, or upon material in some of the chapters in MPIO
Vol. 2 (Section C of the examination) to highlight some of the cultural implications. For example, if an
organisation restructures to reduce middle management and gives more autonomy to lower level staff,
the “bureaucratic” or role culture has to be addressed if the change is going to be successful.

For Section A, It is important to know and understand the relevant case studies and frames used by
Bolman and Deal. For Section B, however, the questions tended to be based on the material the
Course Notes, MPIO Volume 1 and on material in Chapters 3 – 5 of the McKenna and Beech book. In
this section, the approach is a more traditional one - with each topic being discussed separately -
compared to how Bolman and Deal present the subject,. The questions in Section B, therefore, tend to
be based on the material in the separate chapters in MPIO Volume 1 and in McKenna and Beech rather
than in Bolman and Deal’s book. Remember, as with the compulsory question in Section A, the
examiners want you to demonstrate your understanding of the question. To do this, you should try to
use examples and illustrations to support your discussion. You should avoid making general assertions
which are not supported by evidence. Evidence can take the form of reference to research studies or to
examples from more general reading and experience. You will not be expected to make detailed
references to research studies (unlike in the assignment) but it strengthens your answer if you can refer
to the authors of particular theories or ideas.

Structure: The chapters in MPIO Volume 1 introduce some other ways of categorising activity in
organizations, not just the Bolman and Deal way. Chapter Two, on structure, gives a lot of the history
and background of how theories of organisation and management have developed. We spent some
time at the seminar trying to demonstrate how some of the earlier structure “themes” influence present
management practice. Thus a question on Chapter Two will probably ask you to look at contrasting
theories, or it may ask how relevant some of the theories are to the practice of management today. The
chapter illustrates the point that the structural frame has been, and still is, applied in several ways in
modern organizations. In particular, the assumptions of the older “bureaucratic” and “classical” models
can still be seen to operate in many organizations. In particular, the emphasis on control that typifies
most practice in volume manufacturing and in mass service industries has meant that much modern
practice is simply a development of ideas that were developed over one hundred years ago.

Ironically, although organisation theorists have developed quite sophisticated systems-based concepts
of structure, for example, contingency theory, most management practice in the twentieth century
tended to be influenced by the spread of Taylorist and Fordist work systems - for example, the “Toyota
system” or the “Dell system”. Arguably, this process is continuing, particularly in the service sector
(“McDonaldization”).

The spread of IT technology has made possible the delayering of organizations. Twenty-first century
organizations may be more agile and have fewer hierarchical layers than in the twentieth century but
control though work systems may be even more intense than in older “bureaucratic” systems. Ironically,
worker discontent with contemporary practice appears to mirror twentieth century experience. You

3
should be aware of the assumptions, criticisms and limitations of the “traditional” approaches to
management and how they find expression in contemporary issues – such as through labour turnover
(which Americans call attrition), absenteeism, burnout, job-hopping and so on. Although a lot of
manufacturing has shifted to emerging economies where Taylorist work systems seem appropriate and
where labour discontent is suppressed by the “reserve army of the unemployed”, as emerging
economies develop, there are signs of skills shortages and of workers seeking better treatment as well
as higher wages

Culture: When looking at “culture” you should also be aware that the concept of culture is not monolithic.
There is a danger with the Bolman and Deal discussion that readers do not become fully aware of the
sub-sets of “culture”. For example, within the “symbolic” frame discussion in Bolman and Deal there is
an assumption that corporate culture works to unify people in an organization. This is, indeed, the line of
Peters and Waterman’s In Search of Excellence and this is what one would expect most senior
managers to think.

There is important evidence, however, that a new “culture” cannot simply be created through symbolic
acts by managers, at least, not in the short term. Evidence of strong corporate cultures, or corporate
cultures which more clearly exert an influence on behaviour are rare. Many organizational units or levels
have, as a matter of record, quite distinct sub-cultures. Whether or not the existence of these sub-
cultures is a positive or a negative factor for the organization may be a matter for debate. What cannot
be denied, however, is the reality that sub-cultures exist in many organizations and that the values of the
sub-cultures have a powerful influence on those who hold these beliefs and values. (MPIO, Volume 1,
page 107). McKenna and Beech in their section on “Culture and HRM” also draw our attention to some
of these issues. Think about the dimensions of corporate cultures and the implications of how cultures
and sub-cultures actually operate in organizations, which you have experienced. Analyse how cultures
and sub-cultures operate in an organization, which you know well. What are the consequences when
the assumptions made by senior management do not accord with everyday reality (not an uncommon
occurrence!)? Equally it is helpful to follow Schein’s model of a number of levels of culture (from
artefacts to deep seated values).

It is helpful to think of culture as the way we do things around here, the set of values by which we judge
and inform behaviour, and accept the patterns of behaviour. Think of a hospital, the relationship
between a doctor and a patient is only sustained because we accept the values of a ‘professional’ or
medical culture, and expect medical staff to behave in accordance with these values. We can see the
impact of these values/culture more clearly when these informal rules/codes of conduct or not followed.

Distinguish between culture as tradition, the way we do things around here, and corporate culture, the
set of values established by management, the formal values of the organisation. The set of values
management would like everyone to hold. So we could use the term formal (visible) culture and informal
(invisible) culture (traditions/practices).

Corporate cultures often have a public face (an image of the company towards consumers (here we are
using culture as interchangeable with marketing images – McDonalds, M & S, Disney, etc.). A functional
element (a performance culture, a quality culture, a safety culture) and an internal element which is less
visible to outsiders, think of languages, rituals and procedures which mean much to employees, but not
to outsiders.

If culture is a useful concept to understand how and why people behave in particular ways and hold sets
of values we can try and identify different types of cultures. Classifications can be in terms of strength
(strong and weak cultures); in terms of integration (integrated [a single unifying culture] or fragmented

4
[multiple and conflicting culture]); or in terms of management style (role, task, expert, power etc). Here
we find more variation as both academics and consultants seek to set out their own classifications,
normally based on slight differences in views of structure, leadership, change etc.

The big problem is linking culture to performance –this was not really discussed till the final units, but
there are problems in isolating out cultural issues from other variables and how does culture actually
work? Does it change attitudes and motivations? It might be easier to think of weak cultures having very
little effect on behaviour and strong cultures having more an impact on changing and reinforcing
behaviours.

Another weakness in much organizational literature (including Bolman and Deal’s book) on culture (and
in management practice) is that cross-cultural issues are rarely discussed. The assumption seems to be
that one corporate or “integrative” culture can be applied on a global scale. Many multi-national
corporations seem to apply HRM policies and practices developed in their home countries on a world-
wide basis without taking much account of differing cultural values of the countries and regions in which
they operate. Ironically, the most celebrated work on cultural differences among employees in
organizations originates in a massive study (Hofstede, 1981) of the attitudes and values of the
employees of IBM. The irony, of course, is that IBM is often quoted as an exemplar of an organization
with a successful “integrative” corporate culture.

You should note that McKenna and Beech begin their chapter on culture by summarising the work of
Hofstede and also the work of Trompenaars on comparative aspects of culture. This discussion should
help you to “reflect” on your own experience of how culture affects behaviour and performance in
organizations – a key part of your learning. You should also refer to useful and interesting summaries of
Hofstede’s work at www.geert.hofstede.com. Alternatively visit www.12manage.com, or
www.wikipedia.org.

Power and politics: The linkage between the “frames” is illustrated by the fact that many of the problems
associated with “culture change” can be understood by application of the political frame. Most popular
discussions on culture emphasise the symbolic aspects of culture, often together with human resource
aspects. The problem is that this approach gives us only the top management’s view of the symbolism
of the changes.

For middle managers and operators, the changes may be viewed through a more “political” perspective.
They may view the symbolism of a culture change programme with bewilderment or even with cynicism.
Their values and perspectives may not accord with those of senior management. They may not
perceive the organisation through the “unitarist” or “harmony” perspective of the senior managers. They
may see organizational culture through a “differentiation” perspective, i.e., that there are various sub-
cultures within an organisation and that these sub-cultures may conflict with the norms and values of the
“official” culture. McKenna and Beech refer to the HRM challenge of reconciling “unitarist” and “pluralist”
perspectives on culture. One step further would be to recognise that the interests of all members or
groups in an organisation do not always coincide with those of the formal leaders of the organisation – or
indeed with the interests of other groups or departments. Adopting a more overtly political frame of
reference recognises that conflict both between different levels and across departmental boundaries is a
common or even natural occurrence and this has to be managed rather than be simply deplored or
denied!

For power and politics, one of the main reasons why this topic has been neglected in the study of
management may be because senior people like to give an impression of unity of purpose. To admit that
power and politics are being exercised is an admission that the “rational” management system has

5
broken down! However, whilst power can be seen as external control, we should not forget that a strong
corporate culture or high levels of commitment are equally effective forms of power and control over
employees. In many organisations the operation of performance management systems is influenced by
the ‘political’ actions of managers. We should also recognise that politics work best when no one
realises that politics are at work! It is in the interests of those using politics to deny that decisions are
taken for “political” reasons. Even those who lose out in the political process do not want to admit
publicly that they have been outmanoeuvred. Smart politicians don’t boast about their victories – they
point to the logic of their decisions. Equally, losers often publicly deny the politics - they can save face
by agreeing with the public, “rational” reasons for the change.

The study of organizational politics, therefore, is not easy. To demonstrate the power of politics, we
have to look to examples. Bolman and Deal give examples – from the notorious Challenger case
through to the personal manoeuvring of Ross Johnson. There is also the well-intentioned politics of
Helen DeMarco pp 23 – 24 in the 3rd edition (pp 20 – 21 in the 2nd edition) or of Dr. O’Keefe pp 308 - 309
in the 3rd edition (pp 269 - 270 in the 2nd edition). There are lots of other examples in the books. You
should prepare your own examples from your reading or from your experience. We are sure that all of
you will have experienced the reality of organizational politics!

Managing change is more straightforward – although the change process is usually an intermingling of a
rational, planned programme with the politics of implementation. The symbolic frame, of course, also
has relevance. You should know some of the relatively simple frameworks for change set out in the
MPIO chapter and you should also understand how Bolman and Deal go about “framing” change. The
references given in Section A to Bolman and Deal should also be relevant for your preparation for a
question on change.

Leadership and management– as presented in the MPIO notes - is also fairly straightforward. In
Bolman and Deal’s book, leadership seems to be more or less associated with the personal qualities of
individuals. They seem to describe “leadership” rather than try to analyse it in terms of the conventional
academic literature – most of which is based upon social psychology. What is clear from Bolman and
Deal’s discussion is that “leadership as personal quality” has a negative side (see the Ross Johnson pp
221 - 223 in the 3rd edition (pp 194 -198 in the 2nd edition) case study) as well as a positive one (Robert
F. Kennedy High School pp 409 - 430 in the 3rd edition (pp 354 - 376 in the 2nd edition)). The MPIO
chapter presents some different theories and ways of looking at leadership, which you can try to relate to
real examples. Although we can all agree that leadership is important in organizations, especially in
times of change, we appear to be unable to predict, before the event, who will be an effective leader in
real situations. Fiedler’s academic work on matching leader personality to situational factors is a serious
attempt to this but this approach has practical limitations. We also have to acknowledge that
“leadership” is not an easy cure-all, since the power of leadership can be used for negative ends as well
as positive ones.

The MPIO chapter presents a more conventional approach to the study of leadership. One complicating
issue, as with the study of organizations generally, is that people study leadership for different reasons.
Generally, academics are trying to understand leadership processes whereas consultants are seeking
plausible applications. Of course, many academics try to simplify complex research in order to develop
a training programme which brings commercial as well as professional satisfaction! The MPIO chapter
attempts to present a brief overview of some of the issues in the literature. Because of space
constraints, the discussion is relatively uncritical and is mainly a presentation of the main approaches.
The different emphases between different approaches result partly from the different purposes of the
various researchers or consultants quoted in the chapter. You should reflect upon how useful some of

6
the approaches may be as a tool for understanding role of leadership in the practice of management
and the extent to which there are real or imagined differences between management and leadership.

Summary: Overall, you must decide which topics/chapters you wish to select for study in greater depth.
You may wish to note that issues of structure, culture and change are fairly central to most of the main
discussions. You should try to have a general understanding of the main issues in such topics before
the examination. You should also be able to point to the weaknesses of viewing issues only through
one of the frames. In other words, you should be prepared to be critical about the limitations of each of
the frames.

Case Study reminder

Examples of the main case studies are as follows. The pages refer to the third edition (pages for the 2nd
edition in brackets):
‰ Helen Demarco, pp. 23 – 24 (pp. 20-21);
‰ McDonalds, (with Harvard University!) pp.56 – 61; (pp. 49-57)
‰ Citibank, Kodak (see also Team Zebra) and Beth Israel Hospital, pp. 86 – 91; (pp.73-73);
‰ GM Saturn Plant, pp. 106 – 108; (pp. 94-96);
‰ TQM and NUMMI, pp. 154 – 157; (pp. 134-137);
‰ Anne Barretta, pp. 160 – 161; (pp142-143);
‰ Challenger disaster, pp. 183 – 186 and 208 – 210; (pp. 161-164);
‰ Maritz and Cutler and Windows NT, pp. 202 – 204; (pp. 176-179);
‰ CBS television, pp. 211; (pp. 185-186);
‰ Ross Johnson, pp. 221 – 223; (pp.194-198);
‰ Volvo France, pp. 246 – 248; (pp. 217-219);
‰ Cases in ritual and ceremony, 259 – 267; (pp. 222-229);
‰ Nordstrom, pp. 244 – 246; (pp. 231-234);
‰ Eagle group at Data General, pp. 288 – 292 and following; (pp.250-262);
‰ Dr O’Keefe, pp. 308 – 309; (pp. 269-270);
‰ Cindy Marshall, 320 – 333; (pp. 282-293);
‰ Smith and Sloan at GM, pp. 351 – 353; (pp. 303-308);
‰ DBB bank, pp. 368 – 370; (pp. 318-321);
‰ Cola wars, pp. 378 – 380; (pp. 327-329);
‰ “Delta Corporation” pp. 381 – 382; (pp. 330-332);
‰ Team Zebra at Kodak, pp. 385 – 388; (pp.332-339;
‰ Robert F. Kennedy High School, pp.409 – 430; (pp.354 – 376)

Section C

As with Section B, you have a choice of questions in this section. As with section B, most questions will
ask you to examine issues which are specific to particular frames but some questions may link several
chapters. It is always useful to place your answers in the wider context of HRM. At the same time, in
order to demonstrate understanding (that word again!), it will usually be helpful to use illustrations and
examples either from the course materials or from observation and experience. Although HRM presents
general principles, these principles have to be applied in different contexts. You can demonstrate your
understanding by testing some of these principles against real world practice and trying to draw some
lessons from that. For this section, your sources should be MPIO volume 2 and McKenna and Beech
HRM: A Concise Introduction.

7
HRM Background, strategy and relevance: Section C generally deals with areas which fall largely within
the human resource frame. In particular, the contribution which effective human resource management
practice can bring to an organisation is outlined. In the first chapter of MPIO Volume 2, the application
of ideas from the human resource frame is presented in its traditional role as a complement to the
rational economic perspective on organizations (the structural frame). Both the opening and closing
chapters of MPIO, Volume 2, give an exposition of what HRM claims to achieve, why HRM is important
and different HRM strategies. If you plan to answer a question on HRM, you should make sure that you
know the basic argument of the first and last chapters of MPIO, Volume 2, the range of different HRM
strategies and that you have a view on how appropriate these arguments are and the quality of the
evidence.

Chapters Eight and Nine of MPIO - on Recruitment and Selection and on Performance Management -
give an exposition of these major areas of HRM practice. All HRM textbooks, if you have access to one,
cover these and other topics. Both chapters outline models of “best practice” in these areas. You
should note, however, that not all commentators agree that universal best practice models are
necessarily appropriate for all organizations. You could prepare for a question on either of these topics
by looking at the models of practice and comparing them with the practice you have witnessed or
experienced. This could help you to make an informed critique of the topics.

In the past, questions on recruitment and selection have often tended to be concerned with the
methodology of recruitment and selection and the issues of reliability and validity. You should also reflect
upon the context of recruitment and selection: the kind of work that people are being recruited to do; the
values they hold, the available skills and work culture of the local labour market; how easily will recruits
be able to adapt to change or to work with others.

Similarly, questions on performance management often ask you to assess the effectiveness of
performance management theory or practice. However, you should also be alert to the possibilities of
linking an answer on performance management to other elements of the class, say, to motivation or
team working. In addition, many students will have had some experience of the operation of
performance management or performance appraisal systems and should be able to make an informed
judgement about how such systems operate. Where there are weaknesses in the operation of
performance management, students should be able to relate these weaknesses to the design, practice
or context of their organisation and its HR practices. Thus, it makes sense for students to understand
the basics elements of performance management and to have reflected upon their experience of it in
practice.

Motivation: Chapter Ten of MPIO is a fairly general exposition of the main approaches to motivation
which have been discussed during the last fifty years. The chapter looks at the assumptions which
underlie both management practice and different academic approaches to the subject. You should
compare and contrast the assumptions and the usefulness of the various theories. Think also about
their relevance and usefulness for the practice of management. Although you will NOT be asked to give
a detailed academic critique of motivation theory, you should understand the basic assumptions of each
approach and what they imply for the relationship between employees and their employer. From your
own experience as an employee, you should also have developed some understanding of how different
people are motivated in different circumstances which should help you evaluate the practical benefits or
disadvantages of one or some of the theories. More recently academics have used the phrase the
‘psychological contract’ as a slightly different approach to understanding employee motivation and the
level of attachment to the employing organisation. Think also about how some approaches to motivation
link to job design and to the wider culture of an organisation. You should think about how to use the
content of this chapter when you are answering some of the questions in Section B on structure, culture

8
and change. You should also try to include some of the basic understanding of motivation in any
question on team working, rewards or performance management.

Communication and group and team issues: Chapter Eleven looks at these topics. Most questions on
this topic expect you to understand some of the theory and practice about teams and team working and
about how these concepts can be used in practice. You should expect most questions on this topic to
address the practical aspects of reorganising work on team-based units – such as High Performance
Teams, cellular or cell-based teams. In many respects the issues dealt with in this chapter represent a
criticism of the “high-control” approach to management (for example, in scientific management in its
modern forms). The Steelcase example (MPIO Volume 2, pp 471-473) seeks to demonstrate the
benefits which can be gained from trying to develop a “high-trust” model of management based upon
trust and team autonomy.

Ironically, although most of the textbook literature tends to focus on low-level employees, the issue of
trust and control has perhaps even greater relevance to professional-level employees! You may have
some first-hand experience of teams, trust and management control systems as they apply to
professional or managerial employees. Even if there is no specific question on teams or communication,
material from this chapter may also be used in answers to other questions (for example on restructuring,
culture or motivation and job design) in both sections B and C.

HL and CJL
July 2007.