Organisations (1100)

Assignment 2 – Consultancy Report (Individual)

Lecturer: Mr. Jeremy Koh
Class: LF01

Student Name Student Number

Word Count: 2098

 1. Lesson learned from the process improvement pilot: a critical
functionalist perspective

Functionalism is characterized as objective regulation since it comprises the application of

fundamental research principles and techniques to the analysis of specific circumstances
(Hirschheim and Klein, 1989).

Society is pragmatic (Burrell and Morgan, 1979), with activities geared toward the establishment
of order and regulation. Sociology of regulation is built on consensus of values among members
to legitimise the power structure and increase the efficiency of management (John, 1991). The
consultant in this case adopted "lean" with the goal of increasing productivity (Marcelo and
Carla, 2012) and reviving the quality movement. The Toyota Productivity System is utilised,
which looks to be capable of constructing maximum production and quality while lowering costs
through waste removal (Sugimori, Kusunoki, Cho, and Uchikawa, 1977). As a result, it can be
stated that the hospital prioritises enhancing the efficiency of its employees, utilizing time to its
best and having proper time management, resulting in reduction in time during emergency cases
and patient flow.

Moreover, this paradigm necessitates that all aspects of the organisation be created to serve the
manager's specific goals with the help of the developer (Rudy and Heinz, 1989). The nurses are
responsible for supervising the flow of patients, performing and scheduling preliminary tests, and
informing doctors about the patients' status. The introduction of new processes and "kanban"
management is an adaptation of "just-in-time manufacturing," a management system that assures
the delivery of high-quality products on time (Akbar, 2013). It standardises the activities, thus

1
improves “time management”, allowing nurses and doctors to focus their energies ED patients
(Mehri, 2006).

However, the system's high efficiency comes with a number of limitations (Mehri, 2006).
Functionalism has some limitations that may limit its efficacy. This leads to executives ignoring-
problems/disagreements, as well as the possibility that individuals would regard the workplace as
discriminatory because of their position. This puts a lot of strain on the employees since it speeds
up their workflow and raises the intensity of their job without thinking about it. The employees
are upset about the timeliness and standardisation of the system. Staff believe that the intricacy
of their job is being overlooked in the simplification process, that the intricacies of judgments
they face are far different from those encountered while dealing with automobiles, and that it is
consequently difficult to assess and time their performance. Ultimately, due to the constraints of
functionalism, administration has a very conservative viewpoint. Therefore, the system receives
harsh criticism from frontline employees.

Furthermore, to attain efficiency, functionalism approach ignores conflicts, disagreements, and

personal beliefs (Burrell and Morgan, 2016). As a result, people are less likely to participate in
the process. Due to their implicit assumption that the ends are agreed upon, the modification is
chosen inside the management team without consulting the staff. Hospital staff opposes the
change-implementation because they believe it infringes on their professional authority. Doctors
refuse to listen to nurses' advice, and nurses are hesitant to give it to them. Additionally, the ED
staff has various challenges in implementing the protocol due to a lack of communication. They
find it too complex and fail to follow the technique completely. As per (Marcelo and Carla,
2012) if the team does not operate effectively, the lean system might be difficult to establish and
maintain. As a result, the outcome is unsuccessful, as (Akbar, 2013) asserts that employee
participation is critical. As a result of the lack of communication, applied-process has resulted in
significant failure.

2. The value of incorporating interpretivism/social relativism into the

design of a new process improvement project

Social relativist explores for explanations in the realms of individual awareness and subjectivity,
and being within the frame of reference of the social actor rather than the viewer of the act
(Hirschheim and Klein, 1989). "Social roles and institutions exist as expressions of the meanings
that men attach to their reality," (Hirschheim and Klein, 1989, p. 1201). To learn about multiple
views of the organisation, it adopts the epistemology of subjectivism, which applies social
science rather than natural scientific methods, such as comprehending, interpreting experience,
and communicating (David, 2010). According to Social Relativism, there is no ultimate presence
or distinctive independent reality, but rather an endless amount of truth that overlaps (Burrell and
Morgan, 2016).

2
For this case, management and staff had opposing viewpoints. Management is increasingly
concerned with the hospital's overall performance and is under pressure to maximise profits, as
well as to remove "waste" in the network to promptly complete and administer therapy with all
of the essential information. As a result, it makes sense for the consultant and the Improvement
Advisor opted for a functionalist strategy that emphasises on efficiency and effectiveness (Rudy
and Heinz, 1989). Yet, there is a knowledge gap since their reality differs from the staff's
perception of reality. Staff must face numerous problems and great pressure from the new system
in order to achieve their objectives, and supervisors are unwilling to recognise this reality owing
to the objectivism viewpoint (Rudy and Heinz, 1989).

Managers, as per Social Relativism, must work as facilitators, promoting cohesiveness and
togetherness within their organisations via communication, mutual understanding, integration,
and experience learning (Burrell and Morgan, 2016). Managers can have a multi-perspective
about the organisation using the subjectivism paradigm (John, 1991). As a result, communication
and consultation are more important and successful than direct process execution in order to
achieve mutual understanding between parties and so drive staff integration. It is vital to connect
with individuals on a regular basis, to explore new options, comprehend their viewpoints, and
spot potential difficulties.

The collapse of the functionalism paradigm was caused by a lack of internal communication and
agreement. Given the pressure of authority, the new system is forced to be adopted, and staff are
expected to obey the procedures without question. Unlike functionalism, which relies on
authority to enforce legitimacy (Rudy and Heinz, 1989), interpretivism authenticity is based on
agreement among all stakeholders in the organisation, including consultant, Improvement
Advisor, and ED personnel (Burrell and Morgan, 2016). As a result of the consultancy's
engagement, all aspects of the organisation may engage and comprehend each other's viewpoints,
resulting in mutual understanding and value consensus among members and allowing the
organization's realities to be firmly constructed.

According to (André and Sjvold, 2017), the human side of the transforming process is critical
since it may influence corporate culture. As a result, managers must communicate with their
staff, clarifying organization's goals, and offering assistance to those struggling with the
procedure. This may aid in the detection of potential challenges, explore new ideas, and, most
importantly, the identification of staffs’ aspirations and goals. As (Bittner, 1965) states, when
staff' purpose and desire are linked with the organisation's, productivity improves significantly.

3
 3. Proposed consultation process, informed by interpretivism/social
relativism

The process model is built with the goal of ensuring that the organisation processes change
slowly and that each step is handled using considerable thought and active involvement by
doctors, nurses and management employees, since building familiarity with little changes may
make significant superior change implementation easier (Levitt and March, 1988). For directors
to get comments and feedback from staff, the trial model has been implemented. The interviews
along with consultation activities with employees will help the management in constructing
organisational reality as well as detecting any operational issues. Thus, enabling changes to be
carried out quickly. As a result, the model assists management in carefully evaluating each

4
activity, detecting difficulties, and making timely adjustments to avoid a significant negative
impact on the organisation.

Furthermore, the model establishes nurses and doctors involvement is must while making
changes, since they are the bridge between the executives and the frontline staff. Their
participation will promote the process and motivate the personnel, allowing everybody to work
extra energetically. Moreover, this procedure guarantees that all aspects of the hospital are
connected by conducting meetings, collecting feedbacks and comments from every personnel
involved in the working of the hospital. All of the staff's thoughts, experiences, ideas, and
complaints are heard, ensuring that the process is well-articulated and that there are no
disagreements inside the hospital.

4. Proposed consultation process: challenges and limitations

The Social Relativism model's implementation has some limitations. Firstly, as Social Relativism
focuses on comprehending the various aspects of social-reality and encouraging involvement, it
doesn't put a priority on information generalisation or model efficiency (Burrell and Morgan,
2016). Interpretivists claim that the human viewpoint is difficult to generalize since it is complex
and contradictory, and numerous meanings can be given to the same actions (Denzin, 1983).
There is a significant limit to the value of knowledge that has not been generalised. The
effectiveness of this procedure in terms of achieving the ultimate goal is not taken into account
because the focus is on how it is accomplished (Rudy and Heinz, 1989). As a result, this
paradigm focuses on encouraging solid organizational engagement instead of attaining the final
goal, which may reduce the model's productivity.

Second, interpretivism overlooks the influence of authority, action, and organization's function in
society (Burrell and Morgan, 2016). Since the ED department plays a vital role in protecting
patients' lives, it is critical that they optimize their productivity, reduce "waiting time", and assist
as many patients as possible. Furthermore, this paradigm ignores the significance of the
role/status and focuses only on the perspectives of the involvement, who are doctors, nurses, and
employees. If the inefficiency requirement is not met and efficiency does not enhance, the
hospital's credibility will suffer as a result of public disappointment.

Lastly, because of the subjective nature of the process, it is impossible to identify manipulated
staff and unavoidable consequences of respondents (Rudy and Heinz, 1989). Since each
interviewer-respondent relationship, as well as one's political, religious, or social reality, affects
the outcome, there is no benchmark for comparison. Moreover, there is a strong likelihood that
the organisation is influenced by manipulation. As a result, the outcome may be biased.

5. Reflections on consultancy assumptions and their strengths and

limitations

5
For this situation, the organisational reality is socially built via the executives' eyes, with the help
of all other hospital elements. The process method concentrates on inspiring engagement inside
the organisation, assisting everybody in reaching a common understanding of reality and
reaching agreement on their course of action. Since employees' status is not taken into account in
this model, and executives' decisions alone are ineffectual, consensus is necessary to justify the
structure and increase managerial effectiveness. This aligns with the sociology of regulation,
which focuses on understanding society's fundamental unity and explaining its regulatory and
social force while emphasising on individual consensus of values and coherence of all aspects of
the organisation (Burrell and Morgan, 2016).

In addition, the model considers additional factors like need fulfilment and organisational culture
enhancement. Interviews and consulting activities are undertaken on a regular basis in order to
keep contact with employees. Everybody is urged to speak out and voice their thoughts on the
current process. It ensures everybody's heard, valued, and that their uniqueness is maintained.
Furthermore, staff's issues are discovered and aided to empower them during the consulting
process. The hospital may develop an engaging work atmosphere with common ground of
understanding if the consulting relationship is maintained, resulting in an organisational culture
that supports involvement, innovation, and independence.

The consulting process focuses on creating a system that everybody agrees on, regardless of its
efficacy, effectiveness, or downsides. It is impossible to continue forward without the agreement
of all members of the organisation, and the entire procedure must be altered. Staff 's ideas are
heard and valued when introducing significant changes to the organization's culture is proof of
environmental regulation imposed with the goal of the hospital's continued growth (Rudy and
Heinz, 1989). As a result, the model may be stated to be founded on sociology of regulation,
which emphasises value consensus, demands fulfilment, and continual progress (Burrell and
Morgan, 2016).

The consulting assumptions, on the other hand, exclusively focus on reading the organization's
distinctiveness and comprehending the complexity of its social-reality via the Social Relativism
paradigm, leaving the other paradigms untouched. Social relativism is unconcerned with
promoting the most efficient or beneficial practices. They want to present a model that respects
everyone's idea/thought, supports individualism, and encourages as much engagement as
possible. In addition, the consultant is unable to lead the process toward a certain goal or
determine the process's characteristics (Rudy and Heinz, 1989). Their capacity to comprehend
the staff' point of view and work with it to reduce resistance to change is limited. As a result, the
model might be defective and incapable of achieving its full potential.

6
References:

Akbar, K., Babu, K., and Hamidreza, T., 2013. Just-in-time manufacturing system: From
introduction to implement. International Journal of Economics, Business and Finance, 1(2), pp.7-
25.

André, B., and Sjøvold, E., 2017. What characterizes the work culture at a hospital unit that
successfully implemented change - a correlation study. BMC health services research, 17(1),
pp.486.

Burrell, G., and Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. (1st ed.).
London: Routledge

Burrell, G., and Morgan, G., 2016. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis (2nd ed.).
Routledge.

David, H., 2010. Paradigms: How Far Does Research in Distributed Leadership ‘Stretch’?.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3), pp.271-285.

Denzin, N., 1989. Interpretive interactionism. Sage Publications.

Hirschheim, R., and Klein, R., 1989. Four paradigms of information systems development.
Communications of the ACM, 32(10), pp.1199-1216.

John, H., 1991. Multiple Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: A Case Study. Organization
Studies, 12(2), pp.275-299.

Levitt, B., and March, J. G., 1988. Organisational learning. Annual review of sociology, 14,
pp.319-338.

Marcelo, H., and Carla, C., 2012. Lean schools of thought. International journal of production
research, 51(11), pp.3270-3282.

Mehri, D., 2006. The Mehri, 2006 of lean: An Insider’s Perspective on the Realities of the
Toyota Production System. Academy of Management perspectives, 20(2).

Rudy, H., and Heinz, K. K., 1989. Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development. Social
Aspect of Computing, 32(10), pp.1199-1216.

SUGIMORI, Y., KUSUNOKI, K., CHO, F. and UCHIKAWA, S., 1977. Toyota production
system and Kanban system Materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system.
International Journal of Production Research, 15(6), pp.553-564.