Strengths and weaknesses of post-modern organization theory Essay

Strengths and weaknesses of post-modern makeup theory - Essay ExampleMany of the givens about order, structure, communication, and the division of roles necessitate been adjudged as transactions of strength between two or more competing perspectives. On this note, it becomes important to consider the application of power in a way that reviews and possibly adjusts the positions that were previously held hard within the understanding of modernism.In essence, post-modern theory of organization seeks to relax the strict positions promoted within the structures of modernism (Hatch, & Cunliffe, 2013, p. 60). Such a process relates to the imagining of the positions, roles, and processes of management and the elevation of heterogeneous positions that were built on seemly irreducible principles. The increasing of alternatives in standard procedures have opened avenues for experimentation with new systems. The fluid tempers of the markets, the flexibility of commercial processes have mov ed the center of organizational expression from the previous positions in ways that connect well within the different positions that are adopted within genuine systems. Changes in organizational culture and the impact of globalization and liberalization are viewed as some of the landmark factors, which have influenced the emergence of fresh perspectives on the organization in terms of systems and structures (Hatch, & Cunliffe, 2013, p. 11). In the current processes of organization, the manifestations of many changes within the organization are considered as outgrowths of the dominant ideology. The post-modern theory of organization contests the view that the traditional and pompous systems of organization are natural (Linstead, 2004). Instead, the theory affirms that all such processes are transient, flexible, and socially constructed. The internal workings of such systems is created in a way that makes it to respond to certain aspects of change that connect with change. Interpret ations of the primacy of conventional and standardized systems as designed by modernism are entrenched within unyielding perspectives that promote the capriciousness of absolute truths and systems. Such arguments have been used to promote authoritarian styles of leadership and organizational structure as understood together with other ideas that affirm the primacy of systems and processes. In the analysis of the manner in which an organization determines the order of its structure, theorists have sought parallels and precedents from past and existing systems. The force of history and the high value of metanarratives that determine the nature of processes are some of the qualifying factors, which help entrench the systems that have been naturalized by the force of modernisms (Hancock & Tyler, 2001). According to critics of modernism, the aspect of modernism seeks to establish firm positions and to levy laws and procedures in ways that leave little room for the expression of alterna tive thought. It has often been argued that the substance of modernism connects the positions held by the dominant powers and implants them onto all other systems in order to defeat every effort that attempts to demonstrate some desire for alternatives. Corporate