Recent orders
US-Iran Relationship An Issue of Ideological Differences
Module Code
Class/Group
Module Title
Assessment Title
Tutor Name
Student GU ID Number
Date of Submission
Word count: 1803
US-Iran Relationship: An Issue of Ideological Differences
Introduction
Global politics have changed so much since the World War era. Heywood (2014) notes that the global political landscape is volatile, informed by ideology and historical events. Since the take-over of the US-funded Persian dynasty in 1979, the ideologies and political choices of the Islamic ruling party that took over have led to strained relationships between the US and Iran. From the conflict at the mentioned time, Donelly (2013) notes that the political grandstanding, ideology, and rhetoric have all played a key role in the US-Iran conflict. In a few interactions, the two nations have cooperated and agreed on a few issues, yet, their ideological perspectives as well as actions have remained to be a hindrance to long-term positive agreement. The ideological differences are noted by Soltaninejad (2015) to be the key constraint to progress and cooperation between the two nations, in spite of the several attempts made to bring an end to the conflict. Objective plans (including what President Obama’s administration attempted) have been futile in bringing the rift and bringing an end to the conflict (Mattair 2010). In this report, the view that the US-Iran relationship is largely shaped by differences in ideology is taken. The main argument is that ideology has solely led to the differences in perspectives and agenda, evidenced by instances of cooperation and objective attempts to resolve the conflict without success. While the relationship has largely been inconsistent, moving from hostile disagreement to complete cooperation, the only constant factor in the US-Iran relationship has been the differences in ideology, therefore, leading to the conclusion that it is the root of the conflict.
What is Ideology?
The current world can be interpreted as one that is politically charged. Therefore, this drives a need to understand why nations behave the way they do towards each other. The usage and meaning of ideology bears a significant relationship on this understanding. Originally, ideology only meant a science of different ideas that emphasized the significance of human sensation in knowledge formation (Hussain 2015). Therefore, in this definition, ideology was simply a consequence of the environment and its influence on how people thought. Today, ideology has shifted from the previous perspective to focus on the ideas that creates the environment. These ideas are political. As such, Sauer (2019) defines ideology as a phenomenon that exists in order to confirm a given political standpoint, serve a certain group’s interests, and perform functional roles in relation to the political, legal, social, and economic institutions. Ideological differences are defined by Gause (2017) as a body of ideas reflective of interests and beliefs relating to a political system or nation. Further, Sauer (2019) observes that ideological differences are responsible for underlying the political actions of a given group. In simple terms, ideological differences can be used to mean the system of beliefs that informs the decision making process or one that orders reality in a society in order to render decisions and actions intelligible. In this sense, Iran’s ideology is defined by Golkar (2014) as a complex amalgamation of political populism, Islamic religious radicalism, and pan-Islamism. The Iranian society uses this ideology to create a view of a constant battle against oppression, paganism, and empire rule. Contrariwise, the US sees its ideology to be made of freedom and self-rule, masked in concepts such as democracy, liberalism (Burchill 2013), conservatism, populism, and a combination of any of these concepts ranging from mild, moderate, to extremism. These differences are separated by a conformity to what each society defines as political necessary to ensure existence and safety of its stakeholders.
Role of Ideology in the US-Iran Relationship
America’s relationship with Iran has not always been hostile. However, it has been inconsistent. At some point, Iran’s government was a powerful US ally (Bill 2001). At present, the two nations are involved in a conflict regarding their political movements, actions, and decisions. Regardless of the interaction, Pickering et al. (2009) provide an opinion that the relationship is fundamentally driven by an action-focused intersubjective and ideological belief systems rather than one focused on logic and objectivity. Following the Second World War, America and Iran were regular allies working on different agendas including buffering each other against the spread of communism and the rise of pan-Arabism within the Middle East (Posch 2017). Recently, the two nations have worked towards an agreement on protocols on creating a nuclear program that would be meant to increase peaceful coexistence between the two nations. Evidently, the cooperative spirit where necessary, and the stubbornness that has led to conflict is as a result of difference sin ideology.
Having defined ideology and seen the difference between the system of beliefs that inform decision making and political actions for both Iran and the US, it is now prudent to assert that the ideological differences between these two entities have largely been inflexible. For both US and Iran, the system of actions have been fuelled by a subjective pattern involving public interaction and the progression of the conflict. Soltaninejad (2015) and Golkar (2014) observe that the subjective ideologies and the preferred political actions of the two nations have prevented any significant progress aimed at cooperation. Although leaders from both countries have made repeated attempts towards easing the tension and conflict, any progress is eventually stifled by ideological statements, reactions, or actions by a country towards the other. It is also clear that abandoning ideological positions for both America and Iran is near impossible (Sauer 2019). Pathways towards ending the conflict will only be made possible by an actual intention to abandon ideological standpoints and political positions.
The paradox for the US policy direction in Iran is noted through the enduring conflict between Iran and the United States. As the world continues to change since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the changes that have since occurred have shifted political direction for both US and Iran, including their relations (Mirilovic & Kim 2017). However, as things continue to change, the more they remain the same for the US and Iran in their relationship. The impasse between the US and Iran is still unresolved and quite raw, despite tentative transformation on both sides. For example, Washington’s initiatives in Iran have not meant a decline of concerns regarding the foreign policy actions taken by Iran. Similarly, previous cooperation between the two nations have not resolved the mistrust that Iran has on the US and its agenda in the Persian Gulf.
Is the US-Iran Relationship Largely Shaped by Ideological Differences?
It is evident that the US-Iran relationship is largely shaped by differences in ideology. The ideological conflict between America and Iran, according to Hussain (2015), is based on a choice made by each nation regarding objectivity and ideology on each other’s interpretation of the importance of individual interests relating to the perceived dangers from each other. Presently, the US interprets its ideological interpretation and objectivity on Iran that the latter will use its nuclear capabilities to perform violent actions against the US West. On the other hand, Iran uses its ideological position to craft a belief that the US is constantly attempting to stop nuclear ambitions so as to prevent it from benefiting from what such technology offers. On such differing views, and the deteriorating relations between the US and Iran, different economic, military, or geopolitical interests cannot be blamed for the circumstances leading up to the tensions ad conflict (Cordesman 2008). Instead, the narratives and ideas that emerge due to ideological standpoints have led to the positions taken by each nation. While some of them are rooted deep in historical actions and events, there is little evidence pointing to anything more than just pure need to be right from one’s ideological standpoint.
Even where other factors such as political regime, economic interests, and political interests are involved, the US-Iran relationship seems to go back to relying on ideas that are part of each society to make a decision. President Obama’s efforts to ease the conflict between the US and Iran were largely interpreted as weak and dangerous to the wellbeing of the US. Similarly, President Trump’s actions in North Korea (although not within the scope of this report) were also seen as a danger to the nation. These examples point to a simple fact that every nation would rather support its own ideologies than accept to look at an issue with objectivity and rationality. The US would never see Iran’s nuclear capability as a progress to the nation but rather another looming danger to its welfare. Similarly, The US will always be a threat to the welfare of Iran as long as the two nations use ideology to inform decisions. Wherever the two nations stand to gain, they gladly cooperate, forgetting the said ideological positions to meet a certain agenda. Issues regarding protection against other nations have, for example, been a common source of cooperation in the past. Yet, in every other circumstance or event, the different political grandstanding, ideology, and rhetoric emerge in a way that clouds the entire decision making process, regardless of consequences for both the United States or Iran. Arguably, the US-Iran relationship, and its deteriorating nature, goes back to ideological differences that inform political decisions and similar points of view.
Conclusion
The aim of this report was to present evidence that the US-Iran relationship is largely shaped by differences in ideology. The main argument is that ideology has solely led to the differences in perspectives and agenda, evidenced by instances of cooperation and objective attempts to resolve the conflict without success. The report shows that while the relationship has largely been inconsistent, moving from hostile disagreement to complete cooperation, the only constant factor in the US-Iran relationship has been the differences in ideology, therefore leading to the conclusion that it is the root of the conflict. In the discussion, ideology is defined as a phenomenon that exists in order to confirm a given political standpoint, serve a certain group’s interests, and perform functional roles in relation to the political, legal, social, and economic institutions. Iran’s ideology is presented as a complex amalgamation of political populism, Islamic religious radicalism, and pan-Islamism while the US sees its ideology to be made of freedom and self-rule, masked in concepts such as democracy, liberalism, conservatism, populism, and a combination of any of these concepts ranging from mild, moderate, to extremism. The said differences are separated by a conformity to what each society defines as political necessary to ensure existence and safety of its stakeholders. Regardless of the interaction, the relationship between Iran and America is fundamentally driven by an action-focused intersubjective and ideological belief systems rather than one focused on logic and objectivity. In the end, it becomes clear that the US-Iran relationship is largely shaped by differences in ideology.
Reference List
Bill, J A 2001, ‘The Politics of Hegemony: The United States and Iran’, Middle East Policy, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 89-100.
Burchill, S 2013, ‘Liberalism’, in S. Burchill, et al., (eds.), Theories of International Relations (5th ed.), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 57—87.
Cordesman, A H 2008, ‘Iran and the United States: The Nuclear Issue’, Middle East Policy, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 19-29.
Donelly, J 2013, ‘Realism’, in S. Burchill, et al. (eds.), Theories of International Relations (5th ed.), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 32—56.
Gause, F G 2017, ‘Ideologies, alignments, and underbalancing in the new Middle East Cold War’, PS: Political Science & Politics, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 672-675.
Golkar, S 2014, ‘Iran’s Revolutionary Guard: Its View of the United States’, Middle East Policy, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 53-63.
Heywood, A 2014. Global Politics (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, chapter 3, pp. 53-67.
Hussain, N 2015, ‘US-Iran Relations: Issues, Challenges and Prospects’, Policy Perspectives, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 29-47.
Mattair, T R 2010, ‘The United States and Iran: Diplomacy, Sanctions and War’, Middle East Policy, vol. 17, no. 20, pp. 52-61.
Mirilovic, N and Kim, M 2017, ‘Ideology and threat perceptions: American public opinion toward China and Iran’, Political Studies, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 179-198.
Pickering, T R, Parsi, T, Katzman, K, and Mattair, T R 2009, ‘The United States and Iran: What are the prospects for engagement?’, Middle East Policy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1.
Posch, W 2017, ‘Ideology and strategy in the Middle East: The case of Iran’, Survival, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 69-98.
Sauer, T 2019, ‘The Role of Informal International Organizations in Resolving the Iranian Nuclear Crisis (2003–15)’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 939-955.
Soltaninejad, M 2015, ‘Iran and the United States: A Conflict Resolution Perspective’, Asian Politics and Policy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 455-475.
Unethical Communication
Module 5-Critical Thinking
Unethical Communication
Name
Institution
Unethical Communication
Unethical communication is a behavior that entails breaking confidentiality and the manipulation of information. In general, this type of unethical behavior undermines relationships or encourages social immorality (Valde & Henningsen, 2015).
The unethical communication encountered was one where I went to the local store and found that they were running promotional messages or the so-called specials. One of the messages had two items for the price of one. I went ahead and put the items on my basket despite the fact that they did not feature on my shopping list but the deal was too good. I was doing my weekly shopping and so my shopping list was along and I had a lot of items in my basket which meant I could easily be charged for the free item without noticing. After the cashier recorded all the items and gave me the till slip. I checked it and found out that the items had been charged as two. I went back and complained and they told me that the specials had been running for the past month put had just concluded the day before and that they were now selling one item at its traditionally. I complained about the sign and they claimed to have just not been able to pull it down. The other excuse was that usually when they are selling two items for the price of one both items are tied together and these ones were not meaning they were independent. They also had this item they had knocked down its price by $2. However, this amount was included in the till slip and when I raised that concern also, they gave me the same answer. I came to understand later that unethical communication on specials is a considerably common problem and one needs to be careful.
This from the view of a customer border deceptive advertising, which is a crime under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act under the Federal Trade Commission (McGaan, 2016). This deed is also prohibited in states as well and there is no excuse for any business owners especially those with small businesses. A case such as this one can be beyond the reach of the law and just depended on the intuitive nature of what is right and what is not. There was no clear way to reinforce the consequences of this very unethical behavior. I am very sure that many unsuspecting customers have fallen into this trap and only an awareness by consumers on this issue would generate consequences for the business. So in my confrontation with the store manager, I threaten to launch a campaign with people from my neighborhood who rely so much on the store. I was very sure that this was a mere threat and I was just trying my luck on whether the store would welcome the knowledge of the ethical requirements of advertising. Physical campaigns are not easy and so I decided to mobilize people around me using social media especially the Whatsapp group shared by people from down the block.
The campaign did not succeed and the next step would be to check where the team at the store had made any action after I raised my concern. It will still be hard to know because the specials are done, after lengthy periods and by then people are already prepared and made ripe for the idea of something that is cheaper than its traditional price. The store continued to operate as usual and there was no sign of change. It would be safe to say that the little to no outcome ended with store manager promising to ensure that the language they used was ethical but avoided to confess that they had removed the misleading placard. Instead, the store people promised to be more careful with the overdue promotional massages. This means that they were still reluctant with the kind of advertising and that they were going to announce it anyway.
The next time the store operates in violation of the law and the trust of its customers, I would launch a more aggressive approach to this issue that includes the lobby for the support of individuals in boycotting the place. If I encounter this situation again I will first begin with refusing to purchase the item. This should be easy because usually specials do not feature in the shopping list and it is never ideal to wander off a shopping list. The other thing I would do is to inform everybody at the store about the misleading information and thus stop these veil transaction. Other people will come in later in my absence to the store and fall victim to this veil act but will unfortunately not notice it. Informing other customers creates the beginning of the flow of that information. One person will talk about the issue with a friend who will, in turn, inform a friend and so on.
The other thing I would differently after encountering this problem will be to withdraw from the store completely and refuse to do business with them again. This will, of course, be accompanied by an earful for those in charge at the store. I will make sure the store manager understands that they have lost a family of aggressive shoppers and others will follow over time.
References
McGaan, L. (2016). Persuasion ethics. Monmouth College. Retrieved from https://department.monm.edu/cata/mcgaan/classes/cata339/Ethics-Persuasion.htmValde, K., & Henningsen, M. (2015). Facework in responding to unethical communication. International Journal of Business Communication,52(4), 369-403.
UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONS
MODERN, SYMBOLIC-INTERPRETIVE, AND POSTMODERN ANALYSIS OF THE COCA COLA COMPANY
(Author’s name)
(Institutional Affiliation)
Abstract
Organization theory is considered to be the most essential aspects in the science of economics. Organization theory encompasses theorizing, theories, abstraction, the study of organizations from different points of view, levels and methods of analysis. Organizational theory helps managers to effectively more possibilities and ideas for managing and designing their organizations, as managers usually have numerous options and approaches of solving and addressing issues in their organizations (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006b). In the following essay, I will show how the three most common perspective approaches of organizational theory assist managers and organizations, in general, in achieving and understanding that is more comprehensive of the complex phenomenon usually associated with organizations. These three perspectives include the symbolic interpretive, modernistic and post- modernistic. I will do this by analyzing one particular organization, Coca- Cola.
Key words: post- modernistic, modernistic, symbolic interpretive, organizational theory
Introduction
What is an organization? The term organization can be used to refer to a social system that is specifically established for the purposes of achieving certain goals and objectives. The term social system, on the other hand, reflects the fact that a group of persons, who correlate with everyone in some way, are involved. The role of the management in this case is to organize and coordinate the groups or the social systems so that they can corporate and work together towards attaining certain, specific goals set by the organization. As it follows, an organization can also be defined as a group of individuals who have individual or personal objectives, but work together in coordination for the purposes of attaining certain, common goals that have been set and determined by the organization within the set or the frame of their environment and that of their personal goals.
There are a number of elements that define an organization. Some of these factors include goals, people, relationships made by those people, and the structure of the organization (Alchian & Demsetz, 1972).
Goals and objectives
The goals and objectives of an organization are what define what the management and their employees are supposed to attain in an organization. Goals are most useful when they are unified in terms of their content. Everyone in the organization must work towards the same goals. Moreover, the goals of the management and the workers must also be similar to those of the company.
People
These are the organization’s members. It is the duty and the responsibility of the management to ensure that the people’s focus is towards the achievement of the company’s goals.
Relationships between people
This has been defined as the ‘glue’ that sticks organizations together. These relationships are furthered by the culture of the organization, which are in turn defined by the community within which the organization is located. On the other hand, the community is defined by the opinions, values, dependencies, disagreements, and conflicts that are commonly found within an organization. It is possible for the relationships found within the organization to be ruined, especially by power struggles of differing intensities and strengths commonly associated with organizations.
Structure of the organization
This term is used to define how an organization is organized or structured. It also indicates which units of the organization are essential, and what functions are associated with each unit.
Short Summary of the Organization
The Coca Cola Corporation will be the main focus of this paper. The head office of the company is in Delaware, and its holding company is the Corporation Trust Company. The company produces and distributes over 500 brands in more the 200 hundred countries. The company’s most known product is the Coca- cola beverage. The company offers and distributes other products as well like Fanta, Sprite, and Tab, which was the company’s first diet soda.
The holding company of Coca-Cola has several functions. For example, it is the one involved in general business for all of its subsidiaries; it is also the one that gets in other lawful businesses on the behalf of its holdings. For example, the company buys and acquires all or some of the good- will business, trade- names and marks, rights, property names, and other essential assets (Company fact sheet).
MODERNISTIC ANALYSIS
One of the most basic characteristic of modernists is that they are objectivists, in that they focus more on knowledge reality, which is mostly developed through theorization and conceptualization. In the modernistic view, things that occur usually have definite explanations, and usually through the help of data that is carefully collected and analyzed. For example, a company earns profit because of the ability of its CEO to make the right decisions as they invest the money of the company. It has been argued that the modernists only recognize data and information that they can touch, hear, smell, see, and taste. Organizations based on modernistic theories works depending on the systems implemented and defined by the general system theory. The system, on the other hand, can be established through deductive modes which can be used to measure or test the theories through practice. This system is usually focused on building a set of values that an organization can use so that everyone can follow and adhere to the rues, and as a result, function, and perform in a manner that ensures that the organization’s functions run smoothly.
Environment
According to the modernist theory, the environment is the space that can be found outside the organization’s boundaries. The modernists argue that the environment is the one that provides an organization with resources and they also argue that it absorbs its services, as well as, its products. The environment is seen in this theory to foster several constraints or challenges upon the organization. The environment also demands that the organization adapt to its environment. The management of the organization involves the company protecting its internal environment from shocks that might originate from the external environment. Such shocks might include labor, capital shortage, and labor. This environment management strategy is known as buffering. The other environmental strategy is known as boundary spanning, which monitors the activities in the external environment, and represents the interests of the organization through sales, advertisements, public relations, and efforts in recruiting (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006c). The Coca-Cola Company has managed to stay afloat and successful for numerous years because of its ability to manage the environment. The company, for example, has advanced machines and production machines that utilize high technology. These machines lessen the want for man labor and consequently the company cushions itself perfectly in times of shortages in labor.
The modernists analyze an organization based on three main resources namely the environmental contingency assumption, the population ecology premise and the theory on resource dependence. Coca-Cola will be analyzed using the environmental contingency theory. The analysis of the inter-organizational relationships and associations can be helpful for an organization in that it can help the managers comprehend and analyze the king of relationships the organization has with its network actors; the relation can take the form of power or dependence. For example, the resources that the organization utilizes are controlled by the outer environment. The organization, therefore, depends on the environment to provide it with resources, and the environment, hence, influences some of the decisions that the company makes (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006c).
The Coca-Cola Company, for instance, depends on the outside environment for its raw material, labor, products, equipment and knowledge, and capital. The organization should, hence prioritize each dependence according to its importance and scarcity. For example, the Coca-Cola Company utilizes a lot of water for its beverages. There were complains in the past that the company in some areas has been overusing the water resources to the extent that some plants had to shut down. The company also depends on the customers and clients to move its products. There were complains that the company uses a lot of sugar in its products that can be harmful. It was also said that some of the products of the company had harmful chemicals. As a result, the sales of the company dropped significantly.
Social Structure
The social structure of an organization is formed by the relationships that exist between people working in an organization, and between the organizational units and groups formed by these people. Structure can be defined by three main dimensions which have been added on and elaborated by the modernists. These dimensions include; labor division, formalization, and authority hierarchy. There are two main theories that define social structure of an organization. These are the structural contingency theories and the current contingency theories. The structural contingency theories are three; size, centralization and specialization; integration and differentiation; and organic and mechanistic management systems. Today’s contingency theories include; lifecycles, taxonomies, and open system models of development (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006d).
The contingency theory indicates that the dimensions of a social structure are determined by the associations between the organization’s strategy, environment, size and technology. The Coca-Cola Company is largely centralized, in that the organization is divided into three sections; the holding company, its subsidiaries, and the distributors. The main company distributes concentrates of beverages to its subsidiaries for packaging; the subsidiaries package and distribute the products to the customer. This high centralization has numerous challenges. For example, these three systems have different goals and different ways of doing things. This is despite the verity that the aims of an association must be made uniform for better achievements (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006d). As a result, the company has received numerous complains, in addition to being involved in numerous law suits. For example, the quality of raw materials has been said to be low, resulting to products that are of low quality. This, in turn, leads to a decrease in sales and profitability.
Technology
Technology of an organization is based on three perspectives; that it is a means of turning raw material to final products, which it shapes social relations and the social interactions shape it; and that technology is a type of discipline, control and power that can also liberate. Coca-Cola is going to be analyzed by the modernistic definition that technology determines the tools and equipments an organization utilizes. Coca-Cola has advanced tools and equipments that ensure that the company retains high productivity. This has seen the company adapt machines that surpass human capabilities in manufacturing, packaging, and storing. As a result, the increased technology has displaced numerous workers leading to shortages of jobs (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006a).
Culture
Organizational culture can be defined as the way organizations do things or operate. It reflects an organization’s shared expectations and understanding (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006d). Organizational culture can be defined by the values, norms, assumptions, and believes that determine the way that organization runs, feels, think, and act. Coca-Cola has represented its organizational culture through images and symbols commonly used in the promotions, and campaigns of its products. The symbols and images used by Coca-Cola carry numerous meanings. Coca-Cola uses these symbols to express their ‘fun’ culture and to, in turn, influence customers to be part of the fun by purchasing their products.
Statement of Problems
From the above analysis, it was found that Coca-Cola has numerous problems that can affect its productivity. Most of the problems result from the external environment and the failure of the company to prioritize the most essential resources. For example, Coca-Cola was accused of putting too much sugar in its beverages something that led to a drop in sales. The company was also accused of producing beverages with harmful chemicals. This also led to a decrease in sales. The company has also significantly reduced jobs through the utilization of advanced machines. The company is also losing its reputation because of wastage of water, a raw material. In addition to this, Coca-Cola has also largely decentralized its organizational structure, something that has led to a decrease in quality of products produced.
Solution and Recommendations
To solve the problems brought about by the environment, the company has to critically analyze and determine the most essential sources or environments by their scarcity and importance. The company, through this will determine which sources are worth taking care of and which ones are priorities. The company can improve their situation by developing personal relationships with their environment, by lobbying, and marketing their goods. This way they will improve their reputation and, hence, their profitability (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006c).
SYMBOLIC- INTERPRETIVE CRITIQUE
In the context of environments, the symbolic- interpretive theories is composed of three theories; institutional theory, ambiguity theory, and the enacted environment. These theories argue that organizations must adapt to both the external and the internal environments. An alternative measure to the solutions provided for the environmental problems above, the institutional theory can be used, and specifically the institutional pressures can offer the environment and company an alternative set of solutions to the problems caused by the company and the environment respectively. These pressures are coercive, normative, and mimetic. The company can for example, want to be similar in success in creating relationships with the environment to another company. Through the mimetic pressure, the company can eliminate some of its issues like wastage of water, and minimizing of sugar so as to be successful as another company. The company can also use the normative pressure to change. These are the expectations of the culture to conform to the practices of the society (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006c).
Coca-Cola can also transform and solve the problems it is causing the community by use of the coercive pressures which are the pressures provided by the government. The government for example can regulate the amount of water a company uses. It can also regulate the nutritional values of the company’s beverages (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006c). In the technology context, the social construction of technology offered by the symbolic interpretive perspectives can help the company solve its technology problems. The company was indicated to be causing numerous job losses as a result of technology. The symbolic interpretive perspective implies that technology should be co- developed by an interaction of society, environment, economic, culture, and technical factors (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006a). Based on this argument, the company can balance the use of machines with offering and providing the community with job opportunities, because of the above, mentioned factors.
When it comes to the problems caused by the organizational structure, and in particular decentralization, the company can use the symbolic- interpretive approaches to solve the problems caused by decentralization. For example the company can devise and implement key routines and improvisations that must be followed by all subsidiaries to ensure quality of products. The established routine can make sure that actions are reproduced in all of the subsidiaries of the company to ensure that the quality is good and similar. Routine can ensure stability, as well as, transfer and preserve knowledge and skills (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006d).
POSTMODERN CRITIQQUE
In the environment context, the postmodern theories can similarly be used to offer the company alternative solutions to their problems. The company, for example, can utilize the approach based on the different phases of industrialization, and especially the second phase of industrialization. In this phase, the company has a wider range of products, has more complicated processes of production, and it is at this stage the company grows in bureaucracy (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006c). The Coca-Cola Company is in this phase and, it can control some of the adversities that result from this phase of industrialization by specialization, developing a routine, and by controlling the production. The company can also minimize the number of negative effects resulting from this phase by developing a suitable structure of management.
The approach of the third phase indicates that an organization should be more sensitive to the customers. It also suggests that companies should initiate stimulated consumption, and internationalization, as well as, improve its technologies. This way the customers can start viewing the company in a better light and as a result increase their purchasing power (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006c).
When it comes to the organizational structure of the company, an organization should adapt the de- differentiation approach which promotes self- organization, self- coordination, and self- management. The company should practice all this to ensure that the quality of the resulting products is high. The postmodern theory argues that technology can imprison organizations if they let it govern their needs (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006a). As a result, the organization should not let this happen; rather it should strike a balance between technology and providing work (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006d).
Conclusion
For one to completely understand the theory of organizations, they have to study and analyze organizational phenomena in different ways. This is because different ways or approaches of analysis provide one with different kinds of perspectives which lead to different theories and concepts. In the above essay, different kinds perspectives of organizational theories have been used to analyze Coca-Cola as an organization, and as a result, the perspectives have helped in a big way in coming up with different issues that affect the company, in addition to the solutions of the problems. The perspectives that have been looked at are the modern perspective, the symbolic- interpretive perspective, and the postmodern approach.
References
Alchian, A. & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, Information Costs, and EconomicOrganization. The American Economic Review 62(5): 777-795.
Company fact sheet. The Coca-Cola Company. Retrieved from http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/contactus/students.html
Hatch, M. J. & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006a). Technology. Chapter 5. Oxford University Press.
Hatch, M. J. & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006b). A brief history of organization theory. Chapter 2. Oxford University Press.
Hatch, M. J. & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006c). Organization and environment. Chapter 3. Oxford University Press.
Hatch, M. J. & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006d). Organizational social structure. Chapter 4. Oxford University Press.