Organizational Microcosms and Ideological Negotiations (From Negotiations in Organizations, P 227-248, 1983, Max H Bazerman and Roy J Lewicki, ed. - See NCJ-94060)

• NCJ Number: 94068
• Author(s): L D Brown; J C Brown
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 22 pages
• Sale Source: Sage Publications, Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This discussion argues that intraorganizational bargaining rests in large part on shared ideologies, that ideological consensus in organizations may be undercut by changes in the larger society, and that ideological negotiations differ in important ways from bargaining over resource distributions or task definitions.

Abstract

The Relief and Development Agency (RADA), which is devoted to promoting development and alleviating catastrophes in the poorest populations in the Third World, is examined to show that organizations dependent on external origins of resources often map important aspects of their external environments onto their internal structures and processes. For the purposes of this discussion, ideologies are defined as 'sets of beliefs that provide explanations for phenomena, suggest appropriate actions, and bind together their adherents.' All organizations have some minimal ideological definitions of events and concerns, but ideological elements vary in their importance for shaping and controlling member behavior. Ideological negotiations present special problems, because they may challenge fundamental explanations and evaluations of organizational realities or reshape basic assumptions about how organizational activities should be conducted. The following are characteristics of ideological negotiations rooted in external pressures: (1) ideological disputes strongly felt in the larger society promote external agency involvement in intraorganizational negotiations, (2) ideological negotiations are subject to misunderstanding based on inconsistent explanations, (3) ideological negotiations are subject to distortion based on divergent prescriptions and evaluations, and (4) ideological negotiations are subject to emotional polarizations based on threats to group cohesion. Also considered are contexts of ideological negotiation, implications for managing ideological negotiations, and suggestions for further research. Thirty-three references are listed.