Analysis of the Case Oticon Using the Political Metaphor

analysis of the case chattanooga using the Political System metaphor

Karlstad Business School
Handelshögskolan vid Karlstads Universitet

Course code: FEAD51 Course name: Competence and Leadership Title: Analysis of the Case Chattanooga Using the Political System Metaphor Date of Submission: 2013-01-17 Family name
Shurrab El Bouassami

Given name
Hafez Mohammed

Name of the teacher: Markus Fellesson and Sofia Molander Name of the administrator: Frania Johansson

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2. 3. 4. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................- 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................- 1 THEORY ........................................................................................................................- 1 ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................................- 2 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 5. 6. INTERESTS ............................................................................................................- 2 CONFLICTS ...........................................................................................................- 3 POWER ...................................................................................................................- 4 -

CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................- 5 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................- 6 -

I

1. INTRODUCTION
The metaphors of organizations and management have been discussed by Gareth Morgan in his book “Images of Organizations” (Morgan, 2006). Morgan exposed eight metaphorical images of organizations including machine, organism, brain, culture, political system, psychic prison, flux and transformation, and

References: Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1962). ”Two Faces of Power." American Political Science Review. Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press. Bacharach, S. B. and Lawler, E. I. (1980). Power and Politics in Organizations. San Francisco: Iossey-Bass. Bacharach, S. B. and Lawler, E. I. (2000). Organizational Politics. Stamford, CT: IAI Press. Benson, I. K. (1973). "The Analysis of Bureaucratic-Professional Conflict.” Sociological Quarterly. Brown, L. D. (1983). "Managing Conflict Among Groups,” pp. 225-237 in D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin, and Mclntyre, I. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NI: Prentice Hall. Buroway, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinernann Educational Books. Child, I. (1935). "Management Strategies, New Technology and the Labour Process,” in D. Knights, H. Willmott, and Collinson, D. Job Redesign. Aldershot, UK: Cnnlpr. Coser, L. A. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Crozier, M. (1964). The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. London: Tavistock. Culbert, S. and McDonough, I. (1980). The Invisible War: Pursuing Self-Interest at Work. Toronto: Iohn Wiley. Emerson, R. M. (1962). "Power-Dependence Relations.” American Sociological Review. Hickson, D. 1., Hinings, c. R., Lee, c. A., Schneck, R. E., and Pennings, J. M. (1971). "A Strategic Contingencies Theory of lntra-organizational Power.” Administrative Science Quarterly. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Miller, E. I. and Rice, A. K. (1967). Systems of Organization. London: Tavistock. Morgan. G. (2006). Image of organization. Schulich School of business, Toronto. Pfeffer, J. (1978). Organization Design. Arlington Heights, IL: Al-1M. -6-