The Organizational Paradox: A Paradoxical Case Study of Managerial Decision and Organizational Management
Abstrak
This paper attempt to describe some cases and causes of unanticipated side effects of managerial decisions and organizational management, known as the organizational paradox. We found that the task of balancing education and research creates a paradoxical effect. Another case is the difficulty of achieving ‘total benefits’ from all departments. Action taken to improve the quality of the ‘rich’ department will create a dis-improvement of quality in ‘poor’ department. The third case is the paradox of paper-based performance quality. A performance quality based on the paper report is ‘an administrative performance quality’; not real performance. Some causes to these cases are the difficulty of balancing between the vision achievement and the scarcity of resources, the existence of a practical point of view toward everything, the complexity of human action and its relation to the environment, human motivation, systemic causes and a tendency of disregarding the value of information.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
Referensi
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S.K., (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. London: Allyn and bacon, Inc.
Clegg, S. R., (2002). General Introduction in S. R. Clegg (Ed.), Management and Organization Paradoxes: 1-10. Amsterdam
Clegg, S. R., Cuhna, J. V., & Cuhna, M. P., (2002). Management Paradoxes: A Relational View. Human Relations, 55(5): 483-503.
Ford, J., & Backoff, R., (1988). Organizational Change in and Out of Dualities and Paradox. In R. Quinn, & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management: 81-121. Cambridge, MA:
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1975). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Chicago.
Jaffe, D., (2001). Organization Theory; Tension and Change. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Singapore.
Nasution, S. (1996). Metode Penelitian Naturalistik-Kualitatif. Bandung: Tarsito.
Newman, F. M, King, M. B. & Youngs. P. (2001). Professional Development That Addresses School Capacity: Lessons from Urban Elementary Schools. American Journal of Education, 108 (4): 259-299
O’Reilly, C., & Tusman, M., (2008). Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma. In A. P. Brief, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Reseach in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28: 185-206: Elsevier
Rice & Bishorprick. (1971). Conceptual Models of Organization. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Meredith Corporation. New York.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W., (2011). Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. Academy Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
Soemanagara, R, D. (2011). Risalah Penalaran Strategis Bagi Keputusan Strategis: Pendekatan Scenario Game Informativity. Rizqi Press-Kalicari. Bandung.
Sonhadji, A. (1997). Dasar-dasar Penelitian Kualitatif. Bahan-bahan Perkuliahan Desain Penelitian dan Analisis Data. Malang: Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Negeri Malang.
Sterman, J., Kofman, F., & Reppening, N. (1997). Unanticipated Side Effects of Successful Quality Programs: Exploring a Paradox of Organizational Improvement. Management of Science. Vol. 43 (4). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.4.503
##submission.copyrightStatement##
##submission.license.cc.by4.footer##