|
Similarities between Psychoanalysis and Humanistic theories of
Organization
Nadeem Yousaf
In
this article, it is looked for similarities between psychoanalysis and
humanistic view of organization. Some of the similarities are mentioned
below.
(1) The
psychoanalytic theorists accepted the presence of the conscious mind, but
in order to understand personality they relied on unconscious mental
activity. In a similar fashion, all those scholars who have raised
questions against the rational theorists do not mean to say that
organization could live without structure. Instead, they mean that
structure is not solely responsible for the prosperity of the
organization. In fact, behind the scene activity is as important as other
front stage activities because the former tremendously influence the
latter.
(2) The
psychoanalysis model is complex, and, at first glance it seems that it
cannot be applied to the organization. If we are inspired to apply Freud's
thoughts, we should not see them in the narrow sense. His concept of sex
and aggression should not simply be interpreted as acts of love-making
between members of the opposite sex or physical fights between two people.
Indeed, if we can see sex as a symbolic word for likeness and aggression
as a symbol of dislikeness, then we can interpret that there are two basic
drives, likeness and dislikeness, behind the human behavior. We
internalize those views which we like and we work against those aspects
which we dislike. In other
words, it can be argued that
organizational output depends upon how
organizational rationality is internalized.
(3) If
we study carefully the organizational theorists they use the concept of
INFORMAL ORGANIZATION in the same fashion as Freudian psychoanalysis
has
used
the concept of ENERGY.
Freud considers that human beings need other channels to express their
blocked energies; so, Barnerd says that we require informal organization
in the formal organization to
improve efficiency.
It is evident from daily experiences that participants
repressed feelings in the organization due to practical reasons, e.g.,
loss of work, social pressure etc. They form informal grouping according
to their interests
and
show their repressed feelings in such groups. In fact, informal groping in
organization is analogous to a
defence mechanism
as suggested by Freud.
As defence mechanisms are essential to avoid anxiety so the informal
organization is essential to avoid disruption in the organization. Of
course, one has to find the means to release one's intellectual pressure
or tension.
(4) Freud
gives us insight as
to why we identify with
one group and not with another. In organizations, we can observe that
people relate to those who are equivalent to their social status or who
are having similar ideology. This phenomenon is equivalent to Freud's
process of
identification. It is
observed in the experiments that those who do not follow the footsteps of
their peer group are usually reproached.
(5)
Freud's rationalization point seems close to March
and
Olson's observation when
they admit that actions precede the decisions in the state organization.
Freud says that human beings interpret their own behaviour in such a way
which seems to be acceptable and reasonable.
Selznick also asserts that participants take discretionary action on
the name of the organization as a whole.
(6) How
does organizational unconscious develop? In Freudian terms we can say that
it is partly the result of repressive actions. It is easy to appreciate
that structure does not allow all kinds of actions so these actions or
thoughts demand another outlet. If we interpret Freud's concept of Id, Ego
& Super Ego in relation to organization then it will be more or less as
following figure:
|
ID |
= |
INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL
ACTIONS |
|
EGO |
= |
UNCONSCIOUS MIND OF
ORGANIZATION |
|
SUPER-EGO |
= |
CONSCIOUS MIND OF
ORGANIZATION |
(7)
Jung's concept of persona is applicable to organizational life which
means that an organization's apparent structure reveals a different story
than reality. His concept of COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS has closeness with Schein's thought of ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE. Similarly, we can relate his
introvert & extrovert dimensions to the organizations; in the case of
introversion, organization over-emphasizes
on its structure as it is
depicted by Adizes in
early bureaucratic organizations;
in the case of
extroversion, organization's basic orientation is more outward towards the
outside world as its shown by Adizes in `go-go' organization.
(8)
Erik Erikson's eight stages of human development can easily be related with the
development of communication. He sees these stages of development of an
individual's personality, whereas
this author is
of the view that these stages are
also applicable in the development of interaction. If we study human
development it is very closely related to communication. How we develop
our selves very much depends on how our surroundings communicate with us.
(9) The
humanistic
organizational theorists admit the point that an organization is
surrounded by human beings who have different qualifications,
perceptions, thoughts, etc., therefore, organization cannot condition
an absolute specific response of participants through its structure.
Scott mentions on the behalf of natural theorists
that
individual enter in the
organization with individually shaped ideas, expectations
,agendas, and
bring different values,
interests
and abilities.
If
psychoanalytic theorists say that our conscious behaviour is affected
by our unconscious, so, organizational theorists says that formal
structure is affected by informal structure.
There is
always
disparity between a stated goal
and the real goal, and stated goals are not
the only goals governing human behavior. This statement is very close to
Freud's thinking when he says that human systems are composed of
different energies which means that each human being has many
and different
short-term
and
long-term goals. So organizations are composed of such
different human systems and its very logical to think that formal goals
can be blended with informal goals and formal structure must be affected
by informal structures.
In fact,
when a group of people interact with each other they perceive events
differently and act differently. This interaction with different
perception creates an unconscious mind in the organization.
Unconscious Mind of Organization has
following components:
| 1 |
Informal grouping |
| 2 |
Conventions |
| 3 |
Organizational
culture |
| 4 |
Unconscious
reinforcement |
|
