Dubnick, Melvin J. And Jonathan B. Justice, “Dealing with Barnard’s Regret: Accountability and the Zone of Expectations.” Paper prepared for presentation at The Sixth Organization Studies Summer Workshop “Bringing Public Organization and Organizing Back In”, 25-28 May 2011 Abbaye des Vaux de Cernay, Paris France.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document discusses Barnard’s reflections on authority, responsibility, and organizational behavior, highlighting his regret over the limited focus on responsibility in his earlier work.
Barnard’s Regret and Focus on Responsibility
- Barnard expressed regret for neglecting responsibility in his earlier work, focusing mainly on authority.
- He believed that organizational responsibility and its delegation are crucial for understanding cooperative action.
Evolution of Barnard’s Views on Morality
- Initially, Barnard saw morality as instrumental, emphasizing executive responsibility to instill moral standards.
- Later, he recognized that organizational morality is internally derived, emerging from social relationships within the organization.
Organizational Morality and Responsibility Types
- Barnard identified various moral responsibilities, including personal, representative, personnel, corporate, organizational, economic, technical, and legal.
- He emphasized that these responsibilities often conflict and must be managed to prevent organizational failure.
Methods for Resolving Moral Conflicts
- Barnard proposed judicial, reconciliation, and invention as ways to address moral conflicts.
- These methods shift moral conflict resolution from authority to legal, bargaining, or structural solutions, often requiring new roles for managers.
Limitations of Authority and Internal Moral Order
- Barnard argued that authority alone cannot resolve moral dilemmas in complex organizations.
- He stressed the importance of internal moral standards, such as responsibility and loyalty, which develop from within the organization.
The Zone of Indifference and Social Space
- Barnard’s “zone of indifference” describes behaviors actors are indifferent to, accepting organizational directives without moral judgment.
- This concept highlights spatial and social dynamics where preferences and actions interact within organizational cooperation.
Implications for Management and Motivation
- Barnard believed leadership should shape individual discretion to foster high-quality cooperation without excessive supervision.
- He viewed motivation as rooted in organizational morality, not just authority, emphasizing the importance of internal commitment.
Broader Theoretical Influences
- Barnard’s ideas were influenced by sociology, social psychology, and anthropology, using analogies like electromagnetic fields to describe organizational forces.
- His work anticipates later theories by Follett and Simon, emphasizing human motivation and accountability over strict authority models.
Concept of Acceptance and Moral Motivation
- Simon’s acceptance language emphasizes willingness to follow authority or peer direction without abandoning preferences.
- This approach incorporates human values, including other-oriented and personal satisfaction motivations, beyond traditional economic views.
Accountability as a Social Process
- Accountability involves motivating actions based on others’ reactions, expectations, and social norms.
- It shapes behavior through formal sanctions, informal reactions, and moral sentiments, influencing both self-interest and moral motivations.
Expanding Barnard and Simon’s Expectation Zones
- The zone of expectations can be re-conceptualized as a space of accountability, integrating moral responsibility.
- This expansion helps address individual-organization conflicts and fosters responsible cooperation with minimal moral risk.
Organizational Culture and Moral Leadership
- Organizational cultures, moral leadership, and moral responsibility influence individual choices beyond authority and rewards.
- Practical wisdom (phronesis) and moral dilemmas are central to responsible behavior in complex organizations.
Task Specificity and Autonomy in Expectation Zones
- Expectation zones vary by task specificity and autonomy, from performative (low discretion, high risk) to constitutive (high discretion, knowledge-based).
- High reliability organizations rely on strict procedures, but abnormal conditions may require discretion and disobedience.
Leadership and Discretion in Barnard’s View
- Barnard emphasized leaders’ responsibility to create spaces for responsible discretion, not just enforce authority.
- Practical experience and moral responsibility are key to effective leadership and organizational success.