Organizational thinking styles and organizational dysfunctions:
An application in Turkey
Tuğba Dedeoğlu
Meliksah University, Kayseri, Turkey
Mahmut Özdevecioğlu
Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
SUMMARY
The way that is preferred by individuals in using their skills is identified as thinking styles and thought to have important effects on the organization level to ensure the sustainability of organizations and prevention of dysfunctions. In this context the purpose of this study is to determine the impact of thinking styles which is conceptualized as the way of using skills for organizations on organizational dysfunctions. The effects of each thinking style on organizational dysfunctions and the effects of thinking styles dimension on organizational dysfunction dimensions (paranoid, schizoid, depressive, anxious, dramatic-histroinic and compulsive organization) tested by regression models. Developed hypothesis that thinking styles in organizations leads for organizational dysfunction is partially accepted. According to analyze results between legislative, liberal, hierarchic thinking styles and organizational dysfunctions have negative relations and between oligarchic, conservative, internal, external, global and local thinking styles positive relations are determined. The hypothesis about the determination of subdimensions of organizational thinking styles on organizational dysfunction dimensions also partially accepted. This study exert the importance of search organizational dysfunctions and its leaders. Thinking styles also examined in organization level and confirmed as one of the determinant of dysfuntions.
Keywords: Thinking Style, Organizational Dysfunctions, Application In Turkey
1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays in competition environment administrators can find a solution that resolve encountered organizational problems when they approach from the perspective of organizational behavior. Attaching great importance to organizational behavior topics can be good opportunity under increasing competition. The underlying reasons must be investigated for the question “while some organizations are successful some are not?” in spite of similar characteristics and similar talents. Organization thinking styles which majorly affect attitude of individuals. Thinking styles are examined in literature as factor causing diversity in individuals. Like this organizations as living organisms have thinking styles and thought having influence on differences inter organizations. Studies remark that organizations sometimes move away from their targets and show psychological reactions like human when they do not reach the goal. This situation can be termed as organizational dysfunction and can cause crises and failure in organization, knowledge, skills and talent remain incapable for solution of problems, and this situation may cause organizations to confront a pathological trouble. Dysfunctions in organizations commonly end up with crises (Kersten;Sidky, 2005, 471). Crisis is a common output of systems having dysfunction. Therefore organizations have to keep fit mental process and advance appropriate thinking styles to their strategies in order not to experience pathology that cause dysfunctions. Primary aim of this study under this considerations is to determine the effect of organizational thinking styles; which can be described as the way organizations choose to show their ability, on dysfunctions and analyze it with a survey.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Thinking term, basic ability of human, most distinct character of human from all living creatures (Katz; Epstein, 1998, 790). Individuals prefer thinking styles to show their talents. Thinking styles become important because the importance of knowledge increased and access to information remain incapable in today’s conditions. In order to keep up with the changing conditions, providing sustainability improvement is uncertain with appropriate condition thinking styles. Thinking is efficient mental one’s entire life in making decisions, solving problems and displaying behaviour process (Vance; Zell; Groves, 2008, 234). According to Nickerson (1987) thinking is determined as; usage of knowledge neutrally and professionally, to accept existence of solutions for problems from different perspectives and to have acceptable reasons for each one, to be understood differences between hypothesis, assumptions and results, be responsive toward differences between integrity and strongness of idea and express briefly and neutrally ideas in the end of thinking process (Çubukçu, 2004).
The concept of style was studied by Allport (1937) even though until recently was attributed meaning and characteristics to style term, description of style was preserved as “ preferred personal way for doing something” (Sternberg ve Zhang, 2001, 5). Allport (1937) in his study tried to explain styles with French proverb. Proverb is as follow “Style is own self of person”. Each painter, each composer, each actor, each photographer, each housewife, each mechanic have it own style. We can have an idea about individual just looking to the style as well (Jones, 2006, 12). The differences between identity and style is important. Although individuals have same personality characteristics in the same conditions they can exhibit different behaviours. This based on difference of styles (Erden; Altun, 2006, 21).
“Stenberg Mental Self Goverment Theory (1997)” is an important thinking styles modeling study, it encircles like umbrella many varied describings about individual thinking styles and somewhat resolves discussing about definitions. How individuals have various working style, various dressing style, individuals can differentiate in matters like as debriefing, thinking and learning. Fundaments of style theory studies based on 1960-1970’s (Zhang, 2004b, 1296). The purpose is to determine and develop the most appropriate style for certain cases (Grigorenko ve Sternberg, 1997, 298).
Witkin (1962) is among the ancestor who studied about thinking styles and cognitive styles first and he described thinking style as preferences of individuals during data processing period. Myers and Myers (1980) one of the precursors who study personality centered styles and described thinking styles as preferred attitude of individuals in perceiving a world (Jones, 2006, 10). Sternberg (1997) described thingking style as not as performed activity or as talent, he described as preferences of individual in using own talents (Sternberg ve Zhang, 2005, 3). Individuals can adopt specific thinking style or mixed thinking styles. Thinking styles also can be described as election process that how data gathers, what path must be followed in cases and decisions (InQ, 2003,1).
When studies about thinking styles are analyzed it is seen that there are varied approaches (Harrison and Bramson InQ Model (1977), Ned Herrmann Four Quadrant Brain Model (1996), Stenberg Mental Self Goverment Theory Approach (1993) entered to literature. In most studies highly Stenberg (1997) approaches was adopted. However there wasn’t come across any thinking style studies about organizations yet. In a platform where examined the differences between individuals, it should be emphasized the differences of thinking and styles of thinking in individuals. Thinking styles are the way that is prefered by individual to think after he/she obtaining knowledge and learning (Zhang, 2002b, 271). Gregorenko (1993) identifes thinking style term as information processing form of practicable and proper knowledge by individuals. “Mental Self Goverment Theory” analyzes thinking style term model comprehensively. Theory based on idea that like as goverment branches type (legistlative, executive and judical etc.) individuals also manage their thinking process and there is thought about existence of thinking styles (Sternberg; Grigorenko, 1997, 700-703). Accordingly theory individuals manage daily activities just as governing societies. According to Sternberg (1997) theory, thinking styles are multidimensional, other styles are in contradiction with one another. Styles show a tendency to profiling. Mental Self-Goverment theory also captures previous studies by the reason that is based on researchs already have done about styles. Sternberg identifies 13 thinking styles in five dimensions as functions, forms, levels, scope and leanings (Sternberg; Grigorenko, 1997, 701). Thinking styles shouldn’t be thought as good or bad in itself. However we confront studies that assert thinking styles above the rest as well (Albaili, 2007, 8; Fer, 2005, 245-250; Sternberg, 1994, 70). Thinking styles are classified in five dimensions: functions, forms, levels, scopes and learnings as shown in Table 2.1. Below this dimensions there are legistlative, executive, judical, monarchic, hierarchic, and oligarchic, anarchic, global, local, internal, external, liberal, and conservative thinking styles (Grigorenko; Sternberg, 1997, 300-305).
Table 2.1. Dimensions of Thinking Styles and Main characteristicsI. Functions
1. Legislative: innovating, creating, imagining, and formulating.
Make their own rules and prefers doing things by their own ways. Prefers doing creative activities.
2. Executive: Well adjusted, implementing.
Prefers to work with rules and prospectuses. Prefer doing tasks that is prescribed its rules and conditions priorly.
3. Judical: judging, evaluating, giving opinion and comparing.
Prefers doing and dealing with works which can be analyzed and criticised. Willing to make decisions and resolve cases.
II. Forms
4. Monarchic: Motivated by one work and goal at a time. Tend to work just for singular goals rather than multiple goals. Prefers to focus on just one thing.
5. Hierarchic: Focus on multiple goals at once and ranks goals by hierarchy.
Prefers to work with multiple tasks at once and likes to determine order of priority by himself.
6. Oligarchic: Motivated by multiple goals and tasks at a time and do not prioritize them. Prefers to work with multiple tasks at once and likes to do works with complex order which are not determined priority.
7. Anarchic: Like doing works randomly and do not like regulations and systems. Prefers work on multiple tasks with flexible conditions.
III. Levels
8. Global: Work best with large and abstract thoughts. Prefers focus on large issues.
9. Local: Work with concrete and detailed works. Deals with narrow-scoped issues and focus on detailed problems.
IV. Scope
10. Internal: These people are independent, self–sufficient and avoid from conversation. Deal with objects rather than people. Like to work by themselves individually.
11. External: Work best with in groups and these people are social and people oriented. Deal with people rather than objects. Prefer working within groups.
V. Leanings
12. Liberal: These people are innovative, novelty and not conservative. Prefer to work tasks on that involve novelty and uncertainty.
13. Conservative: These people are traditional, prefer to benefit from expriences and rational. Prefers to work on tasks within the frame of tasks and certain procedures. Like to deal with work which is not include uncertainty and novelty.
Source: ( Stenberg, 1997, 26; Albaili, 2007, 8; Fer, 2005, 245-250; Sternberg, 1994, 70)
Inventory was applied in different cultures like as Hong Kong, Chine, India, Philippines and including United States America. It is important from the effectiveness ( Zhang, 2008, 500). There was increase in studies about thinking styles in 1990’s. Until recently studies about thinking styles particularly in practical studies Sternberg Mental Self- Development Theory included to models. Studies about thinking styles remain limited in individual level so that in microlevel. There isn’t studies that survey group or organizational thinking styles in literature.
Examining thinking styles, which are individually variable, at a level of organizations, is important in terms of organizational behaviour. In many of the studies examined human resource that direct creation of organizational properties to understand better organizational system as a whole (Argyris, 2001, 94; Hultman; Gellerman, 2002; Kim,1993, 44). Thinking styles can represent certain groups thinking styles with socialising period. The purpose of the study is to apply the thinking styles inventory from individul level to group and organization level in macro perpective, that validity proved applying to different groups and cultures. And to show that organization also have thinking styles like as living organizm. Organizational thinking styles can be defined as “preferred way of organizations in using their talent” while studies about thinking styles and system viewpoint analyzed.
The other dimension of study is organizational dysfunction. Dysfunction is a damaging situation that causes activities to fail which is beneficial for organization and whole partners. However dysfunction expressed as pathologic situation which is not discoursed and seen as ordinary. Studies concerning dysfunctions in organizations that can conclude with pathological disease was made (Kets de Vries, 1989; Cohen Cohen, 1993). Most of the researchs about organizations are constructed on healthy organizations however even organizations are qualified as healthy, effective organizations also can show pathologic characterisitcs (Kersten, 2001, 452). Rational thought do not accept organizations as living organism that has own opinion and emotions, so this thought confront as a dangerous perpective that lead organizations to crisis. Accordingly results of irrational perpectives organization operating with the coexistence of people can also develop pathologies and can have a dysfunctionality. There exist studies about organizations that can be in a depression even they are seen efficient and productive, organizations impercept this situation as abnormal and move on their life as usual and gradually confront with big problems. Hence in organizations attention should be paid on clinical views (Kets de Vries, 2011, 4). Dysfunctions do not occure randomly precursors of dysfunction is personality structure and behaviours (Kersten, 2005, 544). Dysfunctions should be evaluated within the scope of planned behaviour theories and take in consideration the importance of feeling and opinions. There is no exact contrast between healthy and unhealthy organization life, there can exist mentally pathologics in healthy structure. Dysfunctions express just not mental disorders of a sick organizations which is determinated in organizational heath literature, it expreses mental disorders encountered in whole organizations, periods, structures, strategies, cultures, interpersonal relations, and behaviours (Kersten, 1991, 4; Cohen; Cohen, 1993, 3). In this diseases can also used the same names as individuals according their symptoms. Circumstances as depressive can also show up in organizations as is seen in individuals. When organizations are accepted as a system, the problems encountered in system members cause organizational dysfunctions (Kesken,2011, 3512). According to strategic management approach it is substantial for organizations to behave proactive toward mental disorders (Lim; Murpy, 1999, 65). Developing and updating is important to determine the precursors of functional dysfunctions in organizations. Commonly dysfunctions end up with crises in organizations (Kersten, Sidky,2005,471). Crise mustn’t qualified as an accident, crise is an usual output of system functions that experiencing dysfunction. Organizations exhibiting dysfunction is far away from functionality, more precisely they act with alternative functions created because of nonfunctionality. Reasons of dysfunctions can categorized differently (Nalbandian, 2005, 25-65; Cohen, Cohen,1993; Sperry, 2007; Argyris, 1998). They are management and leadership problems, human resources management problems, problems about groups and teams, problems about information system and communication and global organizational problems. Activities causing dysfunctions in systems creates psychological patterns as anxiety, obsession and forcing in organizational functions (Kersten; Sidky, 2005, 473). Organizations experiencing dysfunctions perceiving and accepting this dysfunction as normal life regime in time. Dysfunctions may show up differently in organizations who do not pay attention for the symptoms of dysfunctions (Nalbaldian, 2005, 25-35; Sperry,2007; Kersten, Sidky, 2005,473). Depending on dysfunctions paranoid, schizoid and depresive etc. organizations may formed. Strategy- structure incoordination may show up in dysfunctional organizations. Interorganizational functions, incoordinations in human resources may cause to this situation. There is two model in literature about organizational dysfunction (Cohen; Cohen, 1993; Kets de Vries; Miller, 1989). One of the models developed by Kets de Vries and Miller (1983) that was the basis of their study is organizational dysfunction typology. Clinic perspective requires a complex study. Adjust to organization can be provided by matching clinic diseases with symptoms of organizations. Dysfunctional organizations are classified as paranoid, schizoid, depressive, compulsive and dramatic organizations (Table 2.2.). This model basic below in this paper.