Organizational Psychology and Structure: Client Relationships, Power Dynamics, and Emerging Models

Posted on Nov 8, 2024 in Social sciences

Organizational Relationship Between Psychologist and Client

Positions on the Psychologist-Client Relationship

  • Two main positions define the understanding of the psychologist-client relationship:
  • Those who believe the field has overemphasized managerial concerns, limiting theoretical development by focusing solely on manager-controlled variables.
  • Those who argue that scientific knowledge and perspectives dominate the client relationship.
  • Clark’s three relationship types:
    • Partnership: Shared leadership, with psychologist and client jointly establishing the action basis.
    • Engineering: Client-led, setting goals and desired interventions; the psychologist can only accept or reject the proposal.
    • Ratio Estimator: Psychologist as expert, analyzing the situation and proposing actions, while seeking client commitment for intervention success.
  • Hollander’s key questions: Who pays, and what is the payment for?

Peiró’s Power Dynamics and Intervention

  • Peiró analyzes power’s impact on organizational intervention, recognizing organizations as socially constructed realities influenced by power plays. He questions who sets intervention goals and who benefits, concluding that those with the most power determine objectives and changes.
  • The primary goal is maintaining the ruling coalition’s power. Psychologists, when requested for intervention, enter a complex web of political relationships, requiring awareness and strategic navigation.

Discrediting the Organizational Psychologist

  • Quintanilla identifies three reasons for the perceived discrediting of organizational psychologists:
    • Concern over managerial values.
    • Neglect of power systems in organizational life.
    • Emphasis on personal factors over organizational factors in problem causation.
  • The perception of the organizational psychologist has shifted from a tool for employers to an expert in improving the client system, balancing worker and company interests. Interventions benefiting the company are assumed to be positive for all.

Traditional Organizational Structures (Mintzberg)

Mintzberg’s Organizational Types and Peiró’s Critiques

  • Mintzberg’s five basic structural configurations:
    • Simple Organization (Entrepreneurial): Simple, small, with few managers and employees. Limited horizontal and vertical differentiation, low formalization. Peiró’s Critique: Lacks resources for contingencies, over-relies on direction.
    • Mechanistic Organization (Bureaucracy): High horizontal and vertical differentiation, task specialization. Includes technostructure, personnel, and technical support. Peiró’s Critique: Simple, monotonous tasks, requiring direct supervision.
    • Professional Bureaucracy: Staffed by professionals, reducing the need for rigid control, formalization, and differentiation. Peiró’s Critique: Coordination challenges among experts, difficulty adapting to change.
    • Divisionalized Bureaucracy: Set of divisions with individual structures, integrated into a weaker overall structure. Peiró’s Critique: Staff stability dependent on division performance.
    • Innovative Organization (Adhocracy): Decentralized, adaptable structure for innovation. Power distributed based on expertise and needs. Peiró’s Critique: High costs due to skilled staff and coordination mechanisms.

Unlimited Organizations and Network Organizations

Definition of Unlimited and Network Organizations

  • Unlimited Organizations: Free flow of information, people, products/services within and between companies for enhanced competitiveness. Boundaries of size, hierarchy, time, and space are minimized.
  • Size limits are irrelevant as these organizations leverage resources from other entities. Horizontal and vertical integration is prioritized. Information technology overcomes time and space constraints.

Factors Contributing to Expansion

  • Factors driving interorganizational cooperation (Van Gils):
    • Market internationalization and increased competition.
    • Access to new technologies and markets.
    • Rapid product obsolescence, necessitating collaborative development.
    • Risk distribution in investments.
    • Product and production standardization needs.
    • Barriers to entry for potential competitors.

Factors Influencing Failure

  • Factors contributing to network organization failure:
    • Changes in project team composition.
    • Cultural differences among network members.
    • Financial companies prioritizing security through restrictive practices.