A Critical Analysis of Four OA Perspectives within an Organization

This report undertakes a critical analysis of four key organizational analysis (OA) perspectives: functionalism, social relativism, neohumanism, and radical structuralism. It begins by introducing the concept of organizational legitimacy and its relevance within research. The discussion section delves into each perspective, exploring their core tenets and applications. Functionalism, with its focus on organizational structure and balance, is examined, followed by social relativism, which emphasizes the impact of cultural contexts on organizational practices. Neohumanism's emphasis on benevolence and holistic development is then analyzed, and the report concludes with a discussion of radical structuralism. The report incorporates relevant literature to support its arguments. The paper concludes with a recommendation and a brief summary of the key findings. The report aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective and their potential impact on organizational dynamics.

Running head: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
Critical analysis of 4 OA perspectives within an organization
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Discussion........................................................................................................................................2
Recommendation.............................................................................................................................7
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
References........................................................................................................................................9

2CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
Introduction
The paper intends to discuss the 4 OA perspective namely they are, functionalist, social
relativism, radical structuralist and neohumanist. This entire analysis focuses on four different
perspective views. The study aims to understand its scope on society and how it is a hampering
society. The very purpose of the study is to understand the legitimate knowledge about the
organisations (Deephouse et al. 2017). Organizational legitimacy is a relevant concept within
organizational research. Most definitions of organizational legitimacy check with the
appropriateness or alignment of a subject inside the context of a social system. Earlier
examinations of legitimacy frequently considered a geographical region or an organizational
discipline as the social machine of interest; later examinations have considered communities,
international society, and the character as the social device conferring legitimacy (Guo et al.
2014). The term “subjects” is used to consult the many varieties of social arrangements
underneath the umbrella of the organizational legitimacy; topics is used rather than objects due to
the fact “topics” grants at least some stage autonomy to the social association or the actors
concerned and due to the fact legitimacy is fundamentally subjective, not goal.
Discussion
1.1. Functionalism
Manageability talk is getting to be universal. In any case, a critical hole endures between
corporate supportability talk and practice. Earlier research on corporate supportability
announcing has depended essentially on two contending hypothetical framings, flagging
hypothesis and authenticity hypothesis, which regularly produce conflicting outcomes with
respect to the centrality and impacts of such divulgences. Accordingly, regardless of this

3CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
generous assortment of research, the job that manageability revelations can play in any change
toward a less unsustainable society stays hazy. With an end goal to propel our aggregate
comprehension of deliberate corporate manageability detailing, we propose a more extravagant
and more nuanced hypothetical focal point by illustration on earlier work in sorted out pietism
(Brunsson, 1989) and hierarchical façades (Abrahamson and Baumard, 2008; Nystrom and
Strabuck, 1984). We contend that opposing societal and institutional weights, fundamentally,
expect associations to participate in deception and create façades, accordingly extremely
restricting the prospects that manageability reports will ever advance into substantive
divulgences. To represent the utilization of these hypothetical ideas, we utilize them to inspect
the discussion, choices, and activities of two very noticeable U.S.- based worldwide oil and gas
companies amid the timeframe of noteworthy national discussion over oil investigation in the
Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. We presume that the ideas of authoritative façade and sorted
out lip service are advantageous to the manageability revelation writing since they give
hypothetical space to all the more formally recognize and join how the predominant financial
framework and clashing partner requests oblige the activity decisions of individual companies. It
is based upon Functionalism concept, first achieved its greatest scope among the American
sociologist in the era of 1940 and 1950. An organisation is made up of various structure, design,
ethics, method, structure, rules and regulation. In an organisation, there should a proper balance
in terms of Functionalism, Social relativism, Neo-Humanism and Radical structuralism.
Organizational legitimacy has been studied for plenty subjects further to companies themselves,
including industries (inclusive of power mills), populations of businesses (such as newspapers),
instructions of businesses (inclusive of multinational firms), structures (together with the
multidivisional form), practices (which includes downsizing and records generation), or even

4CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
organizational leaders (which includes CEOs) (Harrison et al. 2016). Consideration of leaders
and authority systems inside organisations demarks a boundary between organizational
legitimacy and legitimacy in companies, a subject in social psychology that also has a huge
frame of research. This article focuses on organizational legitimacy instead of the legitimacy of
people inside corporations and businesses. Most research on organizational legitimacy is offered
in journal articles (Deephouse et al. 2017). It interprets every specific part of the society
regarding how it contributes to a stable condition of society (Klabbers et al. 2014). A society is
formed through many sub-parts, and each part of the society is very vital for the stable condition
of society as a whole. When one specific part of the society falls or fails to perform the other part
must strive to fill in the gap. The functionalist theory also states that the different individual parts
of the society are primarily made up of different social institutions, each of which is designed in
such manner that each intends to shape the size and the manner of the society. It signifies how
the individual part together makes up a single unit. The core sociology concepts that are
important to go through our government, economy, education, media, religion and family
(Czinkota et al. 2014). Whereas, the manifest function refers to the learning capability of an
individual, the need for education and knowledge that one arouses within himself/herself. It is a
theory about the nature of the mental state. The primary argument relies on proving that it is
superior in terms of his primary competitor. The individual citizen belonging from different
localities have different vision and belief. Understanding diversity components of such
background is a very complicated task.
2.2. Cultural relativism
Associations are executing maintainability activities in various nations with differed
socio-social frameworks. The writing on maintainability, be that as it may, does not present a

5CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
reasonable picture of how national culture can impact elucidations of the significance of
manageability and how these distinctions in translation can result in various supportability
rehearses. The motivation behind this paper is to expand upon the present writing by
distinguishing components (for example manageability convictions and observations) that
intervene the connection between national social qualities and authoritative supportability
activities (Murphy et al. 2018). The theory of social relativism states that there exists no such
ethical value that is superior to any other. The important claim is that the moral norm is designed
by the society in which you exist. Cultural barrier takes place which can be better explained as
like a person brought up in Spain would like to speak Spanish more often as compared to that
who is born in America who want to speak American English as he is familiar with the language.
Cultural relativism does not ignore the importance of morality at all. The man or woman
relativist continues that even as a society may additionally, create value, norm that does not
make them good (Zipin et al. 2015). Different kinds of society have exceptional value and what
is normal in a single area can be incorrect in every other.
2.3. Neohumanism
It is based upon Neohumanism, it is addressed as a spirit of benevolence. It states that to
teach the art of love one has to express it to the society (Bussey et al. 2016). From the post-
modernist perspective, their ontology stands for postmodernism. The notion that not anything
exists cut loose renderings of it in speech, writing, or different kinds of expression. The sector is
made to appear in language, discourse and paintings without referents due to the fact there may
be not anything to refer, and their epistemology is postmodernism. The belief that due to the fact
there may be no impartial fact, there may be no fact about it, the truth is an empty idea; there are
no records, most effective renderings and interpretations. Consequently, every claim to

6CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
knowledge is most effective a power play. The theory does not accept a distinction between a
created things, which is a university. The author of Neohumanism who brought in the concept,
he never clearly mentioned what neohumanism is. It is applied to an individual, and this means
that a student needs to undertake a training session which mainly comprises of three main
ingredients, namely they are Physical, Mental and Spiritual. Elaborating physical training leads
to acquiring to correct diet, practising yoga, to be very strict regarding postures, control on the
breath stimuli, the practice of dance, and other health-related practices (Riasi et al. 2016). On the
other contrary, mental training refers to developing rationality. With the gain of rationality, one
can overcome narrow-minded sentiments. Under Neohumanism we get to learn how narrowly
minded sentiments creates barrier causing expansion. On the other hand, spiritual learning refers
to the act of practising meditation or applying other any such practices that relax the mind or
normal wellbeing of an individual (MacDonald et al. 2015). One of the important fact in the
betterment and development of any society is the utilisation of proper social outlook. Taking into
consideration the past, our civilization culture practices have been very dependent on slavery
practices. One community tries to make slavery of the other community, and this practice seems
to be ongoing. There exists a lack of mutual understanding and respect in terms of one another.
Human fails to understand the responsibility associated with one another. It is our destruction
that is leading to our very own cause. It is we who destroy our ecosystem, air, plant, animals. In
spite of thinking the community as a single community let us consider one another as a single
community and have concern towards the society, this will, in turn, result in our betterment
(Patlasov et al. 2017). It refers to the macro elements of the society means the race, gender, caste
or social class within the society. \the social opportunity and ideas are control by the large

7CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
institutions, and the people are often left with marginalized, disempowered and voiceless thus
leading to widespread alienation of the communities.
2.4. Social relativism
Social relativism is a very popular response. While relativism too has some strengths, its
number one weakness is fact that it eliminate ethic both to social convention and to non-public
preference. Social convention are not equal to ethics. Very often both can be at odds. If there is
no such difference among conference and the morality, something carried out through way of a
groups might sounds to ethical if such is how the group resembles morality for itself (Wellman et
al. 2016). If the social convention and moralities have been same, lengthy-status discriminations
towards a herd of people udertaking the dominant institution could be referred to as moral.
Genocide can be moral as it turned into an expression of a value of these ordering the murder.
However, the individuals who put their life in danger to shop the victim of oppression are moral
hero. While the executions are rightly condemned for having dedicated crime towards the
humanity. Assuming that something is ok doesn’t make it proper. The ethics is implementat that
how people get in conjunction with one other fairly (Ferrell et al. 2015). It is a practice of love
for all creative beings. As human being, we possess intellect and instinct characteristics. It is a
new principle of ethics for a new millennium. It gives a better prospect regarding what it is like
to be a human and by the promotion of an ecological awareness of the existing relationship. It
short it is an invitation to enter into full depth and in the mystery of life. It has its leading
exponent the Indian philosopher.

8CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
Recommendation
Legitimate power is the energy that derives out of formal role or the office held within
the business enterprise's hierarchy of authorities. Let assume an example, the president in a
company possess certain powers because of the position he held within the employer. Maximum
strength, legitimate electricity is primarily relies upon belief as well as on reality. It alos depends
upon that someone holds a selected role in an enterprise. It's additionally primarily based on the
notion of a worker that a person protecting that function possess authority to exert manage.
Legitimate strength as a peak of authority had one awesome advantage on many other resources
of authorities that is that it also includes primarily relies upon some goal rule, law of the business
enterprise.
Conclusion
The paper concludes that how the organisation structure in a manner that is arranged
matters and how the individual perception towards the organization as well as towards the other
responsibilities matters. Legitimacy is a principal idea in organizational institutionalism.
However, from previous analysis, research conducted on legitimacy emerged most effective slow
and became fragment throughout numerous different social, technological know-how literature.
Legitimacy is addressed as a crucial idea in organization institutionalism. The term legitimacy
date lower back to the sunrise of agency concept, but for a maximum of the previous era,
research emerged simplest slowly and became fragmented across several awesome social
technology literatures. The frame of applicable scholarship has grown unexpectedly and in a
spread of guidelines. Much of this new literature has been exceptionally theoretical, invoking
legitimacy as an explanatory concept rather than inspecting it as an empirical asset. An
examining it as an empirical property.

9CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES

10CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
References
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 2017. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements
of the sociology of corporate life. Routledge.
Bussey, M., 2016, November. Neohumanism: Rethinking Education for Planetary Futures.
In International Educational Futures Conference (p. 20).
Czinkota, M., Kaufmann, H.R. and Basile, G., 2014. The relationship between legitimacy,
reputation, sustainability and branding for companies and their supply chains. Industrial
Marketing Management, 43(1), pp.91-101.
Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Tost, L. P., & Suchman, M. C. (2017). Organizational legitimacy:
Six key questions. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, 27-54.
Ferrell, O.C. and Fraedrich, J., 2015. Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Nelson
Education.
Guo, H., Tang, J., & Su, Z. 2014. To be different, or to be the same? The interactive effect of
organizational regulatory legitimacy and entrepreneurial orientation on new venture
performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(3), 665-685.
Harrison, M., 2016. Legitimacy, meaning and knowledge in the making of Taiwanese identity.
Springer.
Kibler, E., Kautonen, T. and Fink, M., 2014. Regional social legitimacy of entrepreneurship:
Implications for entrepreneurial intention and start-up behaviour. Regional Studies, 48(6),
pp.995-1015.

11CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF 4 OA PERSPECTIVES
Klabbers, J., 2014. The emergence of functionalism in international institutional law: colonial
inspirations. European Journal of International Law, 25(3), pp.645-675.
MacDonald, E.L., 2015. A Future Without Spectacle: A Refuge from Cultural Hegemony in
Contemporary Art and Neo-Humanism. MacEwan University Student eJournal, 2(1).
Murphy, R. 2018. Rationality and nature: A sociological inquiry into a changing relationship.
Routledge.
Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M. and Bäckstrand, K., 2016. Normative arguments for non-state actor
participation in international policymaking processes: Functionalism, neocorporatism or
democratic pluralism?. European Journal of International Relations, 22(4), pp.920-943.
Patlasov, O.Y., 2017. Civilization Pyramid Transformation: From Economy of Consumption to
Social, Cultural and Environmental Priorities. International Journal of Ecology &
Development™, 32(3), pp.86-96.
Riasi, A. and Asadzadeh, N., 2016. How coercive and legitimate power relate to different
conflict management styles: a case study of Birjand high schools. Journal of studies in
Education, 6(1), pp.147-159.
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A. and Haack, P., 2017. Legitimacy. Academy of Management
Annals, 11(1), pp.451-478.
Wellman, N., Mayer, D.M., Ong, M. and DeRue, D.S., 2016. When are do-gooders treated
badly? Legitimate power, role expectations, and reactions to moral objection in
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), p.793.