Call/WhatsApp: +1 914 416 5343

Organizational critique

Organizational critique

Investigate professional journals and locate two articles pertaining to organizational behavior that are of interest to you. You are to critique each of the two articles according to the instructions below. The articles should be less than three years old. You are encouraged to use the ProQuest Database found in the Ashford Online Library.

Each one- to two- page critique (a total of two to four pages for both critiques) must include the following three parts:

Identification of the Article – Provide the reader with enough information about your article so he/she will be able to locate the article. Describe your search process.
Summary of the Article – List the main points that the author has tried to establish (i.e., 1, 2, 3 or first, second, third). There normally will be three to five main points. If you are summarizing a court case, you should discuss: What provision of the law was at issue? Briefly state the facts of the case. What legal tests were applied? Were there any unusual elements in the case?

Since the problems in modernity deepens, a community of markets ascends within the place of modern culture and institutions. Amongst the social fragments of the liberal marketization, two contradictory inclinations are crystal clear – one among a enhanced individualism of your rationally choosing consumer, and the other of the cultural current of personal identity and communalism. They are both antithetical to the concept of modern society. Now, in vulnerable self-confidence, following classical sociology, vital idea, and postmodernism, sociology turns, far more than ever, to a powerful reflexivity. Amid the myriad uncertainties, there is little issue that the privileged position provided to rationality in conventional societal idea is rescinded. It is also clear that interpersonal theorists are struggling with much more inquiries increased by their reflexivity, and by a fragmenting modernity, compared to what they have solutions for. The grand undertaking of modernity is already thoroughly epistemologically undone, and its particular societal practices identified gravely inadequate, even as it offers a measure of what men and women want. Several theorists declare their ambivalence as if a final term on the make a difference. Some sociologists, it appears to be, now bashful aside totally from theorizing modern society and seeking its revitalization. They avoid, too, many of the central problematics of modern sociology, including institutions and organizations. But agencies, as sociable partnerships, are immensely influenced by, and constituent of, these large variations in modernity. For most, the social turn to the postmodern requires center phase in mental debate and assessment within the Western side. As societal specialists discern styles of scientific, monetary and political alter manifesting a problem of late or postmodernity, numerous theorists welcome the disruption and affirmation of distinction enabled by postmodern bone fracture and epistemological options to modernist formalism and reified instrumental rationality. Postmodern concepts inside their various ways express our experience with the decomposition around the world. They already have increased the bad space in which regenerative criticism might be sought. But their options to rationalizing modernity ultimately deliver little more than quietism or fetishized personality pursuits. In fact, postmodernism’s lack of ability to create a regenerative imagination for transformation of interpersonal methods which still create sociable, and personal, consequences of disparate benefit or irrefutable repugnance bespeaks its failing as crucial idea. Even as the quicker well-known, celebratory adapt to of your postmodern has gone by, so too possess the essential possibilities portended by postmodern theorizing quite typically discovered accommodation with very long-ranking highly effective interests from the usage of understanding products. Now a personal preference for ethnic concept designed by widespread ideas in the postmodern as ironic, deconstructive and indeterminate displaces societal theory. Societal hypothesis as crucial, socially transformative practice is relegated – like it really is ineluctably culpable with the imperatives and outcomes of any monological rationalizing modernity – to your family member isolation. Postmodern problematics have generated important questions and challenges to conventional sociological and organizational theories and modes of analysis, as well as a plethora of interpretations of contemporary organization practices. But a more serious concern with the limits of modern reason and the rationalized, economistic culture of commodity capitalism as the context of organizational practice scarcely appears in postmodern analyses of organizations. Moreover, sober and serious engagement with its implications and the moral and practical dilemmas to which postmodernism has given rise are systematically ignored by most advocates of postmodern ideas in organization studies. Indeed, these very notions are rejected by some postmodern analysts as modernist illusions which, in the words of one, ‘the postmodern analyst refuses to take seriously’ (Rouleau and Clegg 1992: 18). Many invoke postmodernism as affirmation and legitimation of quite diverse new organizational practices. For the more pragmatic, postmodern ideas and approaches provide access to dimensions of organizational life not yet fully utilized by instrumentally rational approaches, and which are arearable to strategic managerial interventions. In the everyday world of organizations, it is difficult to discern signs of structural and political alteration, beyond expected neorationalist restructurings and realignments of dominant power relations in changing social conditions, inspired by postmodern organizational analyses. Discursive undecidability, as the abstract antidote to subjectification and governmentality, evidently has more appeal in the academy than it does among strategic rationalists in organizational practice who are quick to decide their preferences and to assert foundations where there are none. Of course, many organizational analysts, especially economic and management science analysts, have disdainfully rejected or avoided postmodernism, as they did earlier forms of criticism. But conventional organizational analysis barely conceals its deepening inadequacy to the task of socially analysing organizational practices in manifestly altering postindustrial conditions. A heightened focus on micro, fragmented and socially abstracted issues of organization and economy, typical of positivist and functionalist social science, is an impoverished, ideological response. The privileging of the most utilitarian forms of knowledge refuses reflection on the ends to which such knowledge is put. The perdurability of functionalism and its many derivatives, despite considerable empirical sociological evidence since the mid-20th century disconfirming its practical operation, now aligns with the moral eclipse effected by a dominant instrumental reason. Even though many critics endeavour to describe the limitations and immense risks posed in modern technical rationalities, the imperatives of instrumental rationality continue to feed an assumption of inexhaustible planetary resources fuelling economic production and growth in conventional terms. Consequently, much modern organizational analysis provides little answer to the postmodern theoretical disruption, other than more of the same grossly distorted and unreflective rationalizing modernity. Critical analysis of society and of organizations in contemporary conditions confronts complex, multilayered problems and dynamics. Many social theorists feel isolated in their attempts to think about contemporary society. They feel caught between those who reject modernity, and those who are completely immersed in it. How might we move on from this weakened state ? Reflexivity, which has always been a great strength of sociological thought but which lately has aroused a stifling ambivalence and hesitancy, needs new inspiration. Looking around at the signs of action and struggle going on in the world inspires new consideration of both our conventional notions of modernity and our current forms of criticism. These myriad activities inspire a revitalized sociological imagination, as C. Wright Mills once famously advocated.