OVERALL PLAN

WEEK 2: MANAGEMENT
WEEK 3: LEADERSHIP
WEEK 4: ETHICS
WEEK 5: DECISION MAKING
WEEK 6: MOTIVATION
WEEK 7: POWER & POLITICS
WEEK 8: MEASURING VALUE
WEEK 9: EMOTIONS

WEEK 2: WHAT IS MANAGEMENT?

I. Significance of management
“The process of designing and maintaining an environment in which individuals, working
together in groups, efficiently accomplish selected aims” (Weihrich and Koontz, 2005)

2 criteria for success:

• Effectiveness = achieves stated objectives
• Efficiency = minimises inputs for a given level of output

Where is management?
• From the ‘cradle to the grave’
• From the maternity hospital to funeral services
• Business schools, management consultancies, in-company training programmes…
• Different levels of management
• Senior management, middle management, lower management
• Operations Manager, HR Manager, Marketing Manager…

Does your employer trust you? Why surveillance is the dark underbelly of remote work
If you love your employees, set them free; autonomy is key to employee engagement

(EXAMPLES OF Amazon (strong management) vs Patagonia/Ritz Carlton autonomy)

II. A "very short..." history of management

1) TRADITIONAL VIEW OF MANAGEMENT

Frederick Winslow Taylor’s (1914) book: The Principles of Scientific Management
Scientific solution to the “industrial problem” = Ford’s assembly line: step-by-step process

“The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the
employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee” F.W. Taylor
Fayol (1921): Managers (1) plan, (2) organise, (3) command, (4) coordinate, and (5) control
 Unity of command key

Critiques of two assumptions

• Rationality: universality and ‘one best way’ of doing things

• ‘bounded’ rationality

• Control over humans

• ‘machines’ vs people

• Can managers control everything?

2) MANAGEMENT AS IDEOLOGY

• Rise of business schools, management degrees, management gurus and consultants

• Ideology: “a system of beliefs, values, ideas, interests, social structures and practices that
shape the way we see and make sense of our experience” (Cunliffe, 2021)

• Machine cultural metaphor, view the organization as a living organism

• Managerialism addresses the role, responsibilities and rights of managers in a capitalist

society (Cunliffe, 2009)

• Systemic logic: Practices, assumptions, consequences

• Efficiency/profit via control, achieved via structures

• Managerial right to decide/instruct

Mintzberg (1973): the role of managers

Interpersonal roles: Figurehead, Leader, Liaison

Informational roles

§ Monitor
§ Disseminator
§ Spokesperson

Decisional roles

§ Entrepreneur

§ Disturbance-handler

§ Resource allocator

§ Negotiator
CRITIQUE

• There remains a strict structure and organisational hierarchy - manager vs employee

• How do you control organisational culture? (Prescriptive in nature)

3) CRITICAL MANAGEMENT STUDIES (CMS)

• Key questions posed by CMS scholars

• Whose purposes should it serve?

• How (else) should it be organised?

• What effects does it have?

• Management about oppression/alienation

• (Hidden) politics & consequences

• (Better) alternatives do exist

• Critiques have own assumptions:

• Intentions of actors known

• Power is everywhere

• Oppressor and oppressed known in advance

• Role, not individual

• Questions some aspects of mainstream management studies

III. Revisiting key questions about management

• What constitutes “good” management?

• Is efficiency and effectiveness the answer?

• Depends on your viewpoint/lens

• Abrahamson (1996): it depends on the fashion

 • Where is management?

• Can everyone within an organisation be managed all of the time?

• Bethlehem Iron Company vs global companies today

• Impact of increasing WFH practices?

• Origins of management thought and study

• “There is no ‘one best way’ to manage; it depends on the situation”

(Mintzberg, 2009: 10)

OVERALL: Management emerged through scientific techniques and rationality, but needs to
be challenged and questioned in today’s environment
• Organisations as irrational, complex, messy
• Competing interests, ‘wicked problems’, partial solutions, unintended
outcomes
• No perfect solution for management
• ‘Better’ depends on definition, e.g. shareholder vs. stakeholder view, current
fashion
• Context, time, people, structures, why
• How can we get it right then?

• “Managing is a relational, reflexive and ethical activity. It is not just something one
does, but is more crucially who one is and how we relate to others” (Cunliffe, 2021)

SO management/managers not neutral terms, what is good/appropriate depends on how these

terms are defined

WE need to recognize that controlling ppl, processes and systems might not always be
possible, and that efforts to do so may have unintended or anticipated consequences

Please cite:
Abrahamson, E. (1996). ‘Management fashion’, Academy of Management Review, 21(1):
254-285.
Barley, S. R., & Orr, J. E. (Eds.). (1997). Between craft and science: Technical work in US
settings. Cornell University Press.
Cunliffe, A.L. (2021) A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about
management. (3rd ed.) London: SAGE.
Weihrich, H., and Koontz, H. (2005) Management: a global perspective. (11th ed.)
Wren, D.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (2020) The evolution of management thought. (8th ed.)
Hoboken, US: Wiley.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcperna/2021/09/14/does-your-employer-trust-you-why-
surveillance-is-the-dark-underbelly-of-remote-work/?sh=7139dbccd126
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stanphelps/2019/09/24/if-you-love-your-employees-set-them-
free-autonomy-is-key-to-employee-engagement/?sh=67ae2b5768e6

TASK: Facts v feelings: how to stop our emotions misleading us The long read: The pandemic has
shown how a lack of solid statistics can be dangerous. But even with the firmest of evidence, we often end up
ignoring the facts we don't like

Motivated reasoning = processes (information selection and evaluation, memory

encoding, attitude formation, judgment, and decision-making) are influenced by
motivations or goals

Read The Guardian article (link above) and consider the following questions:

1) What challenges do you think motivated reasoning presents to managers?

 Confirmation bias: Managers may seek out or interpret information in a way that
confirms their pre-existing beliefs, leading to a skewed view of the situation.
 Resistance to change: Motivated reasoning can cause managers to be less open to
new ideas or alternative perspectives, hindering innovation and growth within the
organization.
 Poor decision-making: When emotions drive reasoning, managers may make
decisions based on their feelings rather than objective evidence, leading to
suboptimal outcomes.
 Difficulty in accepting feedback: Motivated reasoning can lead managers to dismiss
or downplay negative feedback, preventing them from recognizing areas for
improvement.
 Polarization within teams: When team members have strong emotional attachments
to their viewpoints, it may lead to increased conflict and decreased collaboration.

2) What advice would you offer managers who are trying to overcome these
challenges?

 Cultivate self-awareness: Managers should be aware of their own biases and

emotions, recognizing when they might be influencing their decision-making process.
 Foster a culture of open dialogue: Encourage team members to share their
perspectives and challenge each other's ideas respectfully. This can help to uncover
potential biases and lead to better decision-making.
 Encourage critical thinking: Train managers and employees to evaluate evidence
objectively and consider alternative explanations before drawing conclusions.
 Seek out diverse perspectives: Include team members with varied backgrounds and
experiences in decision-making processes to provide a wider range of viewpoints and
reduce the likelihood of groupthink.
 Be transparent about the decision-making process: Clearly communicate the rationale
behind decisions and the evidence used to inform them, so that team members
understand the reasoning and can provide input or challenge assumptions.
 Embrace feedback: Encourage managers to view feedback as an opportunity for
growth and learning, rather than a personal attack. Implement systems that allow for
anonymous feedback to reduce the potential for motivated reasoning.
WEEK 3: LEADERSHIP

Given the huge scope of leadership studies, this will necessarily be very selective and we will
build on what you have already learned about leadership in other modules (e.g. Management,
Organisation, and Society). Remember, Critical Issues in Management (CIM) is not about giving
you 'the answers' - it is about helping you develop a critical stance by examining, assessing,
expressing and debating views, opinions and arguments. One could argue that CIM is all about
leadership because it is an attempt to lead you in ways that help you lead yourselves and others.

For this reason, the tasks (see "Week 3: Asynchronous Tasks") are deliberately open - you are
expected to develop thoughtful arguments by finding relevant resources and doing your own
research. This will take time, so please don't leave them to the last minute. Putting a lot of effort
into them will help you develop skills necessary to achieve a high grade in CIM, but more
importantly, become a 'critical thinker', which is valuable beyond your studies.

I. What is leadership, popular associations, academic definitions?

• Leadership is a very ambiguous and value-laden term used in common language

• People have different associations with ‘leadership’ based on their upbringing,

language, etc.

• Risk that we are actually referring to different things when we use the same term

IS IT VALUE NEUTRAL?

• Leader = Boss. Leadership is what the boss does.

• Leader = Dictator (“der Führer”, “el duce”). Leaders are dangerous or evil. They stop
people from thinking critically.

• Leader = Role model. Leaders are courageous.

• Etc.

• None of these associations are necessarily right or wrong…

What are the kinds of things we mean when we refer to leadership?

• Assuming or occupying a position of authority: “The strategic leadership team” [i.e.

people become or are leaders by nature of their role and responsibilities]

• Achieving something [i.e. people become or are leaders based on certain past events
or results that are attributable to them]
 • These meanings are often conflated – make sure you don’t!

ACADEMIC DEFINITIONS ALSO SHOW VARIETY

• “Leadership is the initiation and maintenance of structure in expectation and

interaction” (Stogdill, 1974: 411)

• “Leadership is a development of a clear and complete system of expectations in order

to identify, evoke, and use the strengths of all resources in the organization, the most
important of which is people” (Batten, 1989: 35)

• “Leadership is the art of influencing others to their maximum performance to

accomplish any task, objective or project” (Cohen, 1990: 9)

• “Leadership is a process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort,

and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose” (Jacobs & Jaques, 1990:
281)

• “Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real
changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes” (Daft, 2015:5)

[see Bogenschneider 2016 for full references and other definitions]

How can we talk about leadership? (DO NOT ANSWER TO QUESTIONS)

1) Formulate precise questions

Replace any explicit references to leader/leading/leadership

• How can an actor assume a position of authority [in a particular context]?

• How can an actor attract followers?

• How can an actor get others to do what they otherwise wouldn’t?

• How can complex problems be solved?

• How can people be managed effectively?

• How can a crisis be addressed effectively?

• How can an actor help others achieve their potential?

• How can an actor help others take the initiative [i.e. become autonomous]?

• How can an actor behave morally in adverse circumstances?

• How can an actor shape values?

• How can an actor contribute to positive social change?

 • Etc.

Note: links to other CIM topics, such as management, ethics, generating value,
motivation, power, etc.

2) Carefully define what you mean

• Depending on the definition of leadership you use, some questions may or may not
be relevant

• For instance, according to Grint (2005), leadership is distinct from management and
command. Hence, the following are incompatible:

– How can people be managed effectively so they efficiently perform routine

tasks? [this, according to Grint, calls for management, not leadership]

– How can a crisis be addressed effectively? [this, according to Grint, calls for
command, not leadership]

3) Resist the urge to find the ‘one true’ meaning of leadership (cf. Wittgenstein: accept
‘family resemblances’, rather than looking for the essential characteristic – e.g.
‘game’)

EXAMPLE: you are an entrepreneur…

• You need others to believe in you and your ideas. How?

• Let’s try to look at this from different perspectives… does it (primarily) depend on…

1. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS Your ability to attract followers depends on…

1(a): ‘the type of person you (as a leader) are’

• Great Man Theory’: Certain ‘charismatic’ people are born to lead

• Trait and personality studies

– Confidence

– Drive

– Extraversion

– Etc.

• Implication: You need to have leadership traits (which are difficult to learn) to attract
followers
 • Recommendation: Get a charismatic leader to represent your enterprise

1(b): ‘the type of person the follower is’

• Limited research on followers’ characteristics, but several important studies on why

people may or may not resist (e.g. Milgram experiments on obedience)

• Implication: success depends on how obedient the followers are

• Recommendation: Market your ideas to those who are least likely to question them

1(c): relations between the two?

• Personality clashes?

• Recommendation: Identify potential investors or workers whose personalities are

‘compatible’ with yours

• The more we think about relations, the more we get into perspective 2…

2. PROPERTIES OF SITUATION

Your ability to influence others depends on the situation - What variables might it depend
on?

– Theories of power: Which resources are relevant in a particular situation?

Who controls them?

– Examples: French & Raven’s typology; Bourdieu’s theory of practice…

• people believe you have access to a lot of money, and they value money: You may
find it easy to recruit; to bargain with lenders [Bourdieu: economic capital]

• People believe you are very knowledgeable about things they care about [Bourdieu:
cultural capital]

• You have friends who have access to economic and/or cultural capital [Bourdieu:
social capital]

RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THIS:

• Find a situation in which you are (or your enterprise is) associated with a large
volume of capitals

• Use the capitals that are most highly valued in a particular situation

• And/or: Try to improve your situation

 • Acquire capitals (e.g. by developing social networks)

• Exchange capitals to earn greater interest (e.g. exchange money for

educational qualifications that signal intelligence)

Contingency theories of leadership (i.e. ‘it depends on the situation’)

• We are not just a collection of resources; what matters is not just how these
are valued but also how we acquire them and how, when and where we use them

– We can learn to behave in a way that is deemed ‘inspiring’ by people we

want to influence

– We can present different images of ourselves

– We can shape the situation

• This already gets us into another perspective…

3. PERSUASION TECHNIQUES

Leadership as Process: Leading effectively depends (more) on what people do or how they
do it.

– Theories of communication (incl. body language; verbal communication;

effective use of tools)

– Leadership style theories (and others)

• Let’s revisit ‘charisma’ from this perspective: Maybe ‘charisma’ is what people do rather
than what kind of people they are?

According to Patricia Wasielewski (1985),

charisma can be learned and comprises
techniques to manipulate emotions:

1. Evoke emotions: arouse and then

channel emotions to develop a
community of feeling [We are good, proud, strong etc.]

2. Revoke emotions: Destabilize emotional consensus – introduce a problem [We are

under threat; what should we do?]
 3. Reframe emotions: Reshape interpretations [We need to approach it in this new way;
I can guide you]

All supported with gestures, pitch, tone, etc.

OVERALL: being critical means considering limitations…

Each perspective has its limitations in terms of

– (General) Theory [e.g. a perspective may present human beings as passive;

make simplistic assumptions about how ‘charisma’ works; exaggerate ability
to influence]

– (Specific) Practice [e.g. a perspective may not be useful in explaining what

happened in a specific situation; or, despite a theory being rather ‘simplistic’,
it may nevertheless provide a persuasive account of what happened in this
particular instance]

– Theories and frameworks that may help you answer specific questions

– See textbooks and chapters, such as:

– Dugan (2017) Leadership theory: cultivating critical perspectives [further

readings]

– Chapter on Leadership in Buchanan & Huczynski (2019) Organizational

Behaviour [essential readings]

– E.g. Strategic social change leadership model (Ospina et al. 2012)

PLEASE INCLUDE CITATIONS OF THESE THROUGHOUT

Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2003). ‘Managers doing leadership: The extra-

ordinarization of the mundane’, Human Relations, 56(12): 1435-1459.

Badaracco, J.L. (2002). Leading quietly: An unorthodox guide to doing the right thing. Harvard.

Barker, R.A. (2001). ‘The nature of leadership’, Human Relations, 54(4): 469-494.

Bligh, M.C., Kohles, J.C. and Pillai, R. (2011). ‘Romancing leadership: Past, present, and future’,
The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 1058-1077.
Bogenschneider, B. (2016), ‘Leadership Epistemology’, Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary
Leadership,

2(2):24–37.

Carli, L.L. & Eagly, A.H. (2012). ’Gender and leadership’, Sage Handbook of Leadership (see
Encore).

Denis, J-L., Langley, A. and Sergi, V. (2012). ‘Leadership in the Plural’, The Academy of
Management Annals, 6(1): 211-283.

Hannah, S.T. & Parry, K.W. (2014). ‘Leadership in extreme contexts’, Oxford Handbook of
Leadership and Organisations.

Iszatt-White, M. & Saunders, C. (2017). Leadership, Oxford University Press.

Knights, D. and O’Leary, M. (2005). ‘Reflecting on corporate scandals: The failure of ethical
leadership’, Business Ethics, 14(4): 359-366.

Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership BS, HarperBusiness.

Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973). ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, Policy
Sciences.
WEEK 4: ETHICS

1st: refresher of normative ethical theories before discussing AI Ethics using two cases:

1) An AI-based tool for formative assessments

2) Rho AI case for socially responsible investing

 AI ethics linked to ESG, Trust, AI for academic writing

Parks-Leduc, L., Guay, R.P. & Mulligan, L.M. The Relationships between Personal Values,
Justifications, and Academic Cheating for Business vs. Non-Business Students. J Acad
Ethics (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09427-z

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-021-09427-z

A refresher on ethics helps to become more honest & ethical, and it is a topic of
‘constant wonder’ (the Honest truth about dishonesty, Dan Ariely)

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often
and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.
I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances
beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with
the consciousness of my existence.” ― Immanuel Kant (1788)  Critique of Practical
Reason

 ethical pluralism and different interpretations of ethical dilemma (prism of ethical theories
to variety of normative considerations in solving the ethical dilemma)

I. META-ETHICS

• Metaethics explores the connection between values, reasons for action

(rationalisation), and human motivation.
• It asks: Are there moral facts? Is morality more a matter of taste than truth?
• In principle is there… ‘Truth’?

Five Theories of Truth for educational research: Bridges (1999)

• (1) Truth as Correspondence: The traditional way of evaluating quality in research

is based on the correspondence theory of truth (Heikkinen et al., 2001). Truth in this
case is given if what is said or written corresponds to the facts (Bridges, 1999).
• (2) Truth as Coherence: The coherence theory of truth states that propositions are
true as long as they are consistent, coherent and comprehensive (Bridges, 1999).  
• (3) Truth as Consensus: Truth as consensus is based on the relativist approach by
Egon Guba. Guba (1992) states that one way to find truth is to find an as near as
possible consensus based on the information and level of sophistication available.
New information or increased sophistication might subsequently shift the consensus
and might produce a new more informed or more sophisticated truth.
• (4) Truth as Warranted Belief: For truth as warranted belief “we judge the truth or
falsity of a proposition by reference to its capacity to stand up to the standards of
evidence, argument and critical scrutiny appropriate to its epistemological status and
represented in the disciplined procedures of that form of knowledge… [A] belief is
true… [if] it has successfully survived such tests and our belief is warranted on this
basis” (Bridges, 1999, p. 607).
• (5) Truth as ‘What Works’: The pragmatic theory of truth is based on the notion
that “a belief will work if it is true” (Bridges, 1999, p. 605). This appears to support
the underlying concepts of action research (Heikkinen et al., 2001). Knowledge that is
 located in this theory of truth is often considered as ‘commons sense’ (Bridges, 1999
and Omerod, 2006) and as such can be attractive to practitioners and academics alike
(Omerod, 2006)

• Eg of Lawrence Kohlberg
• Heinz has a sick wife and cannot afford the medicine a rich pharmacist is selling.
The medicine will save his wife’s life. Shall he steal the medicine?

NO: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as
badly, and their lives are equally significant

YES: Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental
value than the property rights of another person.

Ethics is different to Law

• Law and judgements are not always fair, nor are they consistent between countries
Ethics is different to Morals
• Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those
morals are applied
• E.g., criminal defence lawyer: Though the lawyer’s personal moral code likely finds
murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as
vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a
freed defendant would potentially lead to more crime

For many ethical dilemmas (scenarios) there are no laws, rules or regulations

• Often a ‘grey zone’ (neither black or white) and it depends on your interpretation
(shall I return the coat that Amazon sent me erroneously?)
• Where do you draw the line?
• How do you deal with tradeoffs, e.g., financial or time constraints?

II. NORMATIVE (‘ought to’) ETHICAL THEORIES (to help

decide/justify/rationalise if ‘ethical’

The person – Virtue Ethics

• Aristotle (Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics)

• The person who possesses an excellent character does the right thing, at the right time,
and in the right way;
• The golden mean: e.g., Coward – Bravery - Recklessness
• Requires extensive training (e.g., companies’ code of conduct training, also today)

Eg of Confucianism Five virtues

• Ren is the virtue of benevolence, charity, and humanity;
• Yi, of honesty and uprightness;
• Zhi, knowledge;
• Xin, the virtue of faithfulness and integrity;
 • Li, correct behavior, or propriety, good manners, politeness, ceremony, worship.

The Ethics Of Confucius And Aristotle: Mirrors Of Virtue

(Routledge Studies In Ethics And Moral Theory) Hardcover – 1 January 2009 
by  Jiyuan Yu  (Author)

• “As a comparative study of the virtue ethics of Aristotle and Confucius, this book
explores how they each reflect upon human good and virtue out of their respective
cultural assumptions, conceptual frameworks, and philosophical perspectives. It does
not simply take one side as a framework to understand the other; rather, it takes them
as mirrors for each other and seeks to develop new readings and perspectives of both
ethics that would be unattainable if each were studied on its own.”

‘Fun Fact’: The Fundamental Attribution Error Different standards and rationalisation

for self and others

Own bad behaviour = External factors

Others bad behaviour = Emphasis on internal characteristics (character or intention)
e.g., if somebody else is late, it is their character, i.e., their fault to be late, while for our own
lateness circumstances are blamed.

Philosophers who focused on the action (rather than the person)

Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill

TRADITIONAL WESTERN NORMATIVE ETHICAL THEORIES

Motivations/principles (deontological: ethics of duty, non-consequentialist)

 Actions  Outcomes (teleological, consequentialist, utilitarianism)

1) Teleological It’s the consequences that count & it’s about achieving the greatest
happiness; Would you consider sacrificing one person to be able to save three
others? (Trolley dilemma example, greatest happiness principle = action is
morally right if results in greatest good for greatest amount of ppl affected by
action)

2) Deontological Immanuel Kant:

The intentions - It’s not what we do but why we do it

• “Categorical imperative”: the theoretical framework to which every moral issue

should always be applied.
• Maxims:
• 1. Universality (universal law followers): Would you want others to act in
the same way?
• 2. Humanity (Respect) – also known as the ‘Golden Rule’: Don’t treat
people as a means to an end but as an end in itself
 • 3. ‘King on Ends’ (universal law makers): Would others agree? Would you
want your action to be public knowledge?

Korsgaard, Chris-ne (2009) Self-Cons-tu-on: Agency, Iden-ty, and Integrity. New

York: Oxford University Press Inc. (pp. xi-1)

“Human beings are condemned to choice and action. Choosing not to act makes not
acting a kind of action… A good action is one that constitutes its agent as the autonomous
and efficacious cause of his or her own movements”

Active Bystander: Challenging antisocial behaviour

“What hurts the victim the most is not the cruelty of the oppressor but the silence of
the bystander”
Elie Wiesel, Holocaust Survivor
Developing a culture of belonging 

III. APPLIED ETHICS

1) Case 1 The majority of you told me two years ago that you perceive academic
writing to be your biggest barrier to success

In response we developed Warwick’s “AI Essay-Analyst”

• A Research Ethics Project: Students receive 15-pages(ish) of personalised formative
feedback on academic writing, ahead of students’ formal submission deadline
• Many visualisations, e.g., word clouds, your own relative strengths, percentage share
of sections, knowledge graphs (AI produces a mind map based on your essay), as well
as grammar checks, quality of referencing checks, etc.
https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/wjett/tag/isabel_fischer/
Also see additional material on my.wbs for current draft reports.

BUT trade-offs:
• Limited resources
• MVP (Minimum Viable Product)
• Scalability
• Energy Consumption - Environmental Concerns

& another potential concern: Mixed emotions: Automation => Augmentation

 will future of assessments be essays?

2) Case 2: Proposed user interface = Rho AI

Company-Level , Materiality Dashboard

• Compares ESG metrics with industry competitors
• Understand materiality of individual ESG metrics as they relate to financial
performance
 • Allows firm to understand which ESG metrics actually matter and select
companies that focus on those metrics

Technologies and Data (structured and unstructured) and are intrinsically linked, with
the need (and the value) of data still being often overlooked.

What happened since to the protagonists of the Rho AI case?

 https://rhoimpact.com
 https://obantarla.com
 https://www.breakthroughenergy.org/articles/announcing-befellows?
_cldee=ZGF2aWRAc2hvcmVsaW5lLnZj&recipientid=contact093666adb640eb11a8
13000d3a4f62e7-

There are no single ethical requirements, technical standards or best practices that achieve
ethical and trustworthy AI, however, there is a global convergence around five ethical
principles: transparency, justice and fairness, non-maleficence, responsibility and privacy
Jobin, A., Ienca, M. & Vayena, E.; published in Nature Machine Intelligence in 2019.

Short excursion into Google’s new digital Marketing Tool “Performance Max”

- Google did not adopted for their own AI guidelines transparency,

- “Performance Max” is a black box tool for effective ads placement
- It aims to help (paying) users find more ‘converting customers’ across all of Google's
channels (incl. YouTube) https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/10724817?hl=en
- Other companies products / business models also rely on not sharing ‘know-how’
- Is this ethical?

Several authors argue against checklists stating that complex normative questions cannot be
solved with ‘good’ design alone and checklists make difficult ethical debates appear
straightforward in a conceptually shallow manner (Mittelstadt, B. D. Principles alone cannot
guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence  in 2019). Complexities include how
imperfections in data can significantly impact AI-generated results and how the algorithms
underpinning particular AI-based tools can be quite simple, however, the results might be too
complex for the users (Rahwan, I et al., published in Nature in 2019)

 In praxis, do you endorse using a framework, such as the EU guidelines, despite being
simplistic, as a framework offers the opportunity to start considering different angles?

While reading the case (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2043886920961782)

consider the questions outlined in the concluding comments, in particular:

 Have the ethical considerations been considered fully and the potential for bias been
reduced as far as possible?

 Would the tool contribute to the democratisation of information?

  And would the tool, via the investments of the users, pressure corporations to intensify
their focus on limiting their climate impact in a meaningful, effective and sustainable
way?

Please also read, at least the abstracts, of the following four articles from the case:

In, SY, Rook, D, & Monk, A (2019) Integrating Alternative Data (also known as ESG data) in
Investment Decision Making, Global Economic Review: Perspective on East Asian Economics an
Industries, vol 48, issue 3. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3380835

Jobin, A., Ienca, M. & Vayena, E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach
Intell 1, 389-399 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

Rahwan, I et al. (2019) Machine behaviour, Nature 568: 477-� 486. - see reading list

Raisch, S, and Krakowski, S (2020) Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation-
Augmentation Paradox, Academy of Management Review -  - see reading list and also
attachment at the end of this page
WEEK 5: DECISION-MAKING, JUDGEMENT AND WISDOM
I. Individual decision-making as rational choice

 Assess own preferences; It is important for me that I drive a car that is comfortable,
safe and reliable

 Consider alternative future actions; I can buy car A, car B or car C.

 Predict possible consequences; Car A is likely to be very comfortable, outstandingly safe

and more reliable than B or C.

 Compare this to known preferences; Car A has better fit to my preferences than B or C

 Identify one alternative as optimal; Car A is my best choice, so I commit to buying car A

Core assumptions

• Linear and rational

• Known preferences, consequences and choices

• Humans have one aim: utility maximization

Evaluation of a ‘good’ decision?

• Follows appropriate step process

• Relies on appropriate evidence

Tweak #1: Humans are ‘boundedly rational’ (Simon 1960)

Decision making as: intelligence → design → choice

• Limited ability to process information, understand implications of choices, and

assess own preferences

• Humans aim for utility ‘satisficing’, not maximization.

(‘satisficing’ ← satisfy + suffice)

 Organisations as information-processing and decision-making machines

Tweak #2: Humans’ use of heuristics lead to cognitive biases

“People rely on a limited number of heuristic principles which reduce the complex tasks of
assessing probabilities and predicting values to simpler judgmental operations”
“Heuristics are highly economical and usually effective…
… but they lead to systematic and predictable errors” (i.e. biases)

(Tversky and Kahnemann, 1974)

 Identify and mitigate common heuristics/biases:

e.g. availability heuristic, prospect theory, anchoring effect, confirmation bias...

II. Individual decision-making as a practice

Critiques of previous definition:

Decision-making does not necessarily precede action

• Actions happen, then decision (March, 1991)

• Sensemaking (Weick, 1995): “How can I know what I think until I see what I
say”

• Formal decision processes often hinder action—purposefully or not

Decision-making seldom (if ever!) involves a linear sequence of steps

• Non-linear process, informed by imagination and history

• Diagnosis (problem) and prognosis (solution) are not separate; the solution
may define the problem

Decision-making is not just an individual cognitive process

• Decisions are emotional and corporeal (Shotter & Tsoukas, 2014)

• Decisions are social  Power and politics (Pettigrew, 2001)

Decisions cannot be distinguished from the context in which they are embedded

• Not isolated; issue streams of multiple decisions (Langley et al. 1995)

• Attributing decision to individual persons is hard

SO Mintzberg (1993) sees decision making as art (imagination, creativity, insight/action =

inductive), science (evidence, analysis, diagnose/design/decide/so, deductive) and craft
(experience, learn by doing, act/think, iterative)

III. Organizational decision making

1) Organization as information processing machine

The ‘Carnegie School’

• Simon (1945) Administrative Behavior

• March & Simon (1958) Organizations

• Cyert & March (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm

Multidisciplinary perspective on decision-making:

• Economics, psychology, sociology, political science.

• Focus on information and sociopolitical processes.

Implications

Development of Management Information Systems (MIS, ERPs…), and ‘artificial intelligence

2) Garbage-can model of decision making (Langley et al., 1995) = Decisions are made
based on the mix of problems, solutions, and participants available at any
given moment, rather than following a clear, logical process.

• Decision-making under conditions of high uncertainty: ‘organised anarchy’

(Cohen et al. ,1972): authority and decision-making flow from the top down

• Problems, solutions, participants and choices are fluid.

• Which solutions get attached to which problems is partially determined by chance:

when decision is taken, who is there, which goals and information are
foregrounded…

3) Rationality as retrospective justification (info as signal and symbol)

Feldman and March (1981)

Information as signal and symbol

• Gathering information as ritualistic assurance, e.g., “we are doing ‘good’ decision-
making and have ‘good’ information to prove it”

• Exhibiting proper (rational) behavior and competence

• Information poorly related to decisions

• Information to justify decision collected and interpreted after decision

• Information gathered following request not actually considered for that

decision
 • Regardless of info available, more info is requested

COMMON ISSUES IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING

• Size and complexity key challenge

• Silos as organisational norm (Tett, 2015)

• Tribal behaviors, limited info exchange

• Wicked problems

• Ambiguous and uncertain

• No previous template fits, unique situation

• Competing demands and interests

• No rule for determining the ‘correct’ solution

IV. Judgment and practical wisdom

Practical wisdom (Shotter & Tsoukas, 2014)

• Based on Aristotle’s concept of ‘Phronesis’

• Drawing on virtue ethics, i.e., a general understanding of what is considered fair

and just in human affairs

• Moral qualities orient us in exercising judgement

• Courage, restraint, generosity, charity etc.

• Emotional attunement

• Emotions are integral to decision-making

• Exploring the uniqueness of the situation and its similarities/ differences to previous
situations

• Consider conflicting values and priorities to ‘do justice’ to the situation

Acting: “wandering around” within the situation

Judgment as the process of forming an opinion or evaluation

• Modern organisations and need for judgment
• Tame problems = decision-making; wicked problems = judgment
• Sound judgment is key to leadership
• Consequences for many
 • Judgment calls determine success or failure
• Balancing tensions as norm (Smith, 2015)
• How to ensure ‘good’ judgment (wisdom)? (Hayashi, 2001)
• Pattern recognition and cross-indexing
Self-awareness and constant reflection/correction

LIMITATIONS OF LEADERSHIP AS JUDGEMENT

Challenge to idea of rational judgment

• Context created to justify decision (Grint, 2005)
• We cannot objectively ‘know’ situation
• More than just cognitive information-processing and problem-solving (Shotter &
Tsoukas, 2014)
Need something other to guide us
• ‘Good’ judgment not from correct process

HOW TO EVALUATE GOOD JUDGEMENT

• What are the virtues/ moral qualities guiding the judgement call?
• What are the consequences of the judgement for different stakeholders/ the common
good?

TAKEAWAYS
• Individual decision-making as rational choice
• ‘Good’ decision? (1) correct process, (2) appropriate evidence (information
and models)
• Bounded rationality, heuristics and cognitive biases
• Individual decision-making as practice
• Art, craft and science
• Organisational decision-making
• Information and sociopolitical processes
• Role of information to legitimate, not inform
• Garbage can: decisions are contextual and can rarely be easily identified
• Judgment and practical wisdom
• What motives guide judgement? Consequences?
• Links to Accountability & Responsibility, Power, and Ethics

REFERENCES

Allen, T. (2010). ‘You have to lead from everywhere’, Harvard Business Review. November.

Brunsson, N. (1990). ‘Deciding for responsibility and legitimation: Alternative interpretations

of organizational decision-making’, Accounting, Organisations and Society, 15, 1-2, 47-59.

Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1972). ‘A garbage can model of organizational
choice’, Administration Science Quarterly, 17, 1, 1-25.
Dauvergne (2012). A Study of Behavioural Decision Making: BP and the Deepwater Horizon
Disaster of 2010. https://www.slideshare.net/JeromeDauvergne/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-
29814608?from_action=save

Feldman, M.S. and March, J.G. (1981). ‘Information in organisations as signal and symbol’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2): 171-186.

Grint, K. (2007). ‘Learning to lead: Can Aristotle help us find the road to wisdom?’,
Leadership, 3(2).

Hayashi, A. M. (2001). When to trust your gut. Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 59–65.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Allen Lane.

Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., and Saint-Macary, J. (1995). ‘Opening up
decision making: The view from the black stool’, Organization Science, 6, 3, 260-279.

March, J.G. (1991). ‘How decisions happen in organisations’, Human-Computer Interaction,

6, 95-117.

Nicolini, D., Korica, M. and Ruddle, K. (2015). ‘Staying in the know’, Sloan Management
Review.

Nonaka, I. et al. (2014). ‘Wisdom, management and organisation’, Management Learning,

45(4): 365-376.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1973[2001]). The Politics of Organisational Decision-Making. Routledge.

Shotter, J. and Tsoukas, H. (2014). ‘In search of phronesis: Leadership and the art of
judgment’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(2): 224-243.

Smith, W. (2015). ’Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic
paradoxes’, Academy of Management Journal.

TASK:

Read the following FT article about Kweku Adoboli, a former London-based UBS stock
trader, who was convicted of fraud after allegedly causing losses of $2.3bn in 2011. 

Then reflect about the different aspects of individual and organisational decision making
that feature in this story. 

Try to identify instances of as many as the following as possible: rational decision-making,

bounded rationality, heuristics and biases, decision making as practice (art, craft and
science), organisations as information processing machines, politics in decision
making, retrospective justification, organised anarchy (garbage-can model).

https://www.ft.com/content/0fa0b42a-783a-11e5-a95a-27d368e1ddf7?shareType=nongift
1. Rational decision-making: Adoboli's initial trading activities might have appeared rational,
as he tried to maximize profit for UBS through his trades. However, his actions later
became increasingly risky and unauthorized, leading to significant losses.
2. Bounded rationality: Adoboli was operating in a complex, fast-paced environment with
limited information-processing capabilities. As a result, his ability to assess the risks and
consequences of his actions was restricted, leading to suboptimal decision-making.
3. Heuristics and biases: Adoboli may have fallen victim to overconfidence bias, believing he
could consistently outperform the market and manage the risks of his unauthorized
trading activities. This overconfidence may have contributed to his willingness to take on
increasingly risky trades.
4. Decision-making as practice (art, craft, and science): Adoboli's trading activities can be
seen as a combination of art (using intuition and creativity to identify trading
opportunities), craft (leveraging experience and skills to execute trades), and science
(analyzing market data and trends to inform trading decisions).
5. Organizations as information processing machines: The article mentions that UBS had
inadequate risk controls in place, which allowed Adoboli's unauthorized trades to go
undetected. This suggests that the organization failed to effectively process and manage
information related to trading risks.
6. Politics in decision-making: Adoboli's actions might have been influenced by internal
politics and pressures within UBS, as traders were encouraged to take risks to generate
profits, and the bank's culture may have prioritized short-term gains over long-term
stability.
7. Retrospective justification: After the losses were discovered, UBS sought to distance itself
from Adoboli and his actions. The bank claimed that his actions were unauthorized and
illegal, emphasizing that it did not condone or support his behavior. This can be seen as a
form of retrospective justification, as the organization tried to protect its reputation and
legitimacy.
8. Organized anarchy (garbage-can model): The complex, fast-paced environment of the
financial industry, combined with the lack of effective risk controls at UBS, created a
context in which decisions were made based on chance encounters and the availability of
information at the time. This allowed Adoboli's unauthorized trades to continue for an
extended period, ultimately leading to substantial losses.
WEEK 6: MOTIVATION

Definitions: - An energising force that brings about action - Pinder (1998) - “To be motivated
means to be moved to do something” - Ryan and Deci (2000, p.54) - “The dense network of
concepts and their interrelations that underlie observable changes in the initiation, direction,
intensity, and persistence of voluntary action” - Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson (2017, p.339)

 Motivation is inherently individualistic

Basic types of Motivation

• Extrinsic Motivator – Something (usually tangible) that is external to the individual that
encourages them to act towards a specific goal e.g. money, company car, etc.
• Intrinsic Motivator – Something (usually intangible) that is internal to the individual that
encourages them to act towards a specific goal e.g. pride, sense or accomplishment, etc

Process Theory of Motivation

• Motivation fundamentally consists of two subsystems:
• The content of a desirable goal (Goal Content)
• The effort and persistence put into achieving that goal (Goal Striving)
• These are two independent components required for an individual to be motivated
• May also know these parts by the terms:
• Direction and Drive • Goal setting and goal striving • Choice motivation and control
motivation • Goal selection and goal implementation
(Mitchell, 1997; Parks & Guay, 2009; Kanfer et al., 2017)

A desirable goal w/ resource expenditure aimed at achieving it

Goal Contents + Goal Striving = Motivation

1) GOAL CONTENT (the what)

• Represents what is desirable to the individual ‘the desired goal’ ; can be anything
(intrinsic/extrinsic, tangible/intangible, a state of being, an emotion, etc…) • The more
desirable the goal content is to the individual, the motivationally better, as the individual is
more likely to endeavour to achieve those goals through actions or behaviours that will result
in their accomplishment

2) GOAL STRIVING (the how)

• Represents how the individual will achieve the desired goal (as dictated by the goal content
subsystem) • Encompasses the resources that will be put into trying to achieve desired goal

MOTIVATIONAL SEQUENCE
• Needs: Innate and biological, needed for homeostasis
• Values: Cognitive representation of needs
• Motivation: Energising force (emotional?) leading to behaviour
• Behaviours: The physical manifestation of motivation acted out in order to achieve
desirable goals
• Goals: Cognitive representation of a desired state

(Ryan & Deci, 2000; Latham & Pinder, 2005; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987; Rokeach, 1973;
Schwartz, 1992; 1994; Feather, 1995; Locke, 1991; Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004)

So why does motivation matter? - It is what is needed to elicit behaviours aimed at achieving
goals. Without motivation no action takes place

Just some Ways to Motivate • Empowerment • Create a sense of equity • Reward •

Reinforce commitment/Culture • Set goals • Highlight the meaningfulness of work • Build a
sense achievement • Appeal to ego/self-enhancement • Increase involvement • Avoid
punishment • Link to value fulfilment • Increase autonomy • Seek approval • Coerce • Utilise
path of least resistance principles • Reciprocity

I. Problems with motivation = ongoing process

“People often say that motivation doesn’t last. Well, neither does bathing – that’s why we
recommend it daily” - Zig Ziglar

1) One size fits all and goal misalignment

Your Goal > My Goal • Others may appear to be motivated towards the same goal as you
when they are in fact motivated towards something different (e.g. renumeration, avoiding
punishment, etc.) • Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivators • Group work…

2) Perverse incentivization and dark side

Incentives can have unintended and undesirable consequences • Motivators can also
have the opposite effect (Aka The Cobra Effect): • Bred cobras were released after
authorities stopped paying bounties • Heroin was invented as a cure for cocaine
addiction • Northern Irish ‘Cash for Ash’ scandal • Lashley (2000) found that systems
put in place at TGI Friday restaurants to motivate servers resulted in self-perpetuating
demotivating systems being created

Highly motivated workers are susceptible to negative outcomes such as: • Stress and
Burnout • Presenteeism • Perfectionism • Workaholism The dark side of motivation
(Gould-Williams, et al., 2013; Giauque, et al., 2013; Stoeber, et al., 2013; van Loon,
et al. 2015; Gross, et al., 2019)

3) Resource expenditure and negative emotions

Individuals invest resources in order to try and achieve what is important to them and what
they value The more value place upon a goal, the more resource individuals are likely to
invest in trying to achieve that goal

 if successful = payoff (if not, double negative hit)

Relationships between Self-Sacrifice, Expent Resources, Pro-Social Value Fulfilment, and
the Experience of Positive & Negative Emotions (Felstead, Kiefer, and Racko)

II. Passive motivation

“A Nudge is any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a
predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic
incentives.” Thaler & Sunstein (2008)

Choice architecture is concerned about the design and presentation of options given to
decision makers. This can include, but is not limited to: • The number of options presented •
The description of the presented options • Inclusion and choice of a default option

The essence of choice architecture is that individuals are not the rational ‘Homo Economicus’
that traditional economic theory argues they are and that they need help from benevolent
architects

The central tenants of choice architecture are that architects should make making the “right”
decision as easy as possible for the individual while making the “wrong” choice harder.
However, this is problematic…

Takeaways • Motivation is highly individualistic and operates as the link between values and
behaviours • There are many different ways to motivate others • As a leader you should be
careful to align your goals with your subordinate’s goals • Be careful not to place excessive
desirability on goals that are difficult to achieve • Behavioural science, choice architecture
offer exciting new tools in which to influence others but these can be susceptible to unethical
use

REFERENCES

Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influences of values on the
perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 68(6), 1135.

• Gould-Williams, J. S., Mostafa, A. M. S., & Bottomley, P. (2013). Public service

motivation and employee outcomes in the Egyptian public sector: Testing the mediating
effect of person-organization fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 25(2), 597-622.

• Giauque, D., Anderfuhren-Biget, S., & Varone, F. (2013). Stress perception in public
organisations: Expanding the job demands–job resources model by including public
service motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(1), 58-83.
• Gross, H. P., Thaler, J., & Winter, V. (2019). Integrating public service motivation in
the job-demands-resources model: An empirical analysis to explain employees’
performance, absenteeism, and presenteeism. International Public Management
Journal, 22(1), 176- 206.

• Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annu. Rev.
Sociol., 30, 359-393.

• Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century
of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 338.

• Lashley, C. (2000). Empowerment through involvement: a case study of TGI Fridays

restaurants. Personnel Review.

• Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the
dawn of the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 485-516.

• Locke, E. A. (1997). The motivation to work: What we know. Advances in Motivation

and Achievement, 10, 375-412. • Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivational strategies
with organizational contexts. Research in organizational behavior, 19, 57- 150.

Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2009). Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and
individual differences, 47(7), 675-684.. • Pinder, C. C. (2014). Work motivation in
organizational behavior. psychology press.

• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free press. • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E.
L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical

advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Academic Press. • Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there
universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?. Journal of social
issues, 50(4), 19-45. • Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal
psychological structure of human values. Journal of personality and social psychology,
53(3), 550.

• Stoeber, J., Davis, C. R., & Townley, J. (2013). Perfectionism and workaholism in
employees: The role of work motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7),
733-738. • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge. Penguin.

• Van Loon, N. M., Vandenabeele, W., & Leisink, P. (2015). On the bright and dark side
of public service motivation: The relationship between PSM and employee wellbeing.
Public Money & Management, 35(5), 349-356.
WEEK 7: POWER, POLITICS & RESISTANCE IN ORGANIZATIONS

Power & politics are often seen as bad &/or overtly un-discussible aspects of organizational
life, but are relevant in all situations where there are conflicting interests and/or limited
resources • Discover hidden power in a situation & its sources • Use power to bring about or
prevent change

Political skill is more important for career success than job performance or intelligence
(Pfeffer, 2010; 2022): ‘You may find power plays & the politicians behind them unsavory &
they can be. But you’ll have to get over your qualms if you want to bring about meaningful
change’ (Pfeffer, 2010: 87)

Power as an individual property, can be something a person possesses (Individual sources of

power, for E.g. energy, intelligence, interpersonal skill , intimidation…)

Structural power (in organisational hierarchy or social structure) • Control over resources •
Access to information • Centrality (‘overhead’ vs ‘business’) • Hierarchical authority •
‘Social capital’ (Bourdieu)

Three dimensions of power • “A has power over B to the extent that A can get B to do
something that B would not otherwise do” (Dahl 1957) • Pluralism, democracy & conflict
resolution over subjective interests • “A [tries to]… limit the scope of the political process to
public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A” (Bachrach
& Baratz 1962) • Covert conflict re controlling decision & non-decision-making agendas • “A
may exercise power over B by… influencing, shaping or determining his [or her] very
wants… the supreme exercise of power… to secure compliance by controlling their thoughts
& desires.” (Lukes 1974) • ‘3rd Dimension of power’ (hidden conflict)

Foucault on knowledge/power (discourse) • Modes of ordering, categorising or ranking

construct truths, which we define ourselves & the world in relation to • Ancient Chinese
encyclopaedia: ‘animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c)
tame, (d) suckling pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present
classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et
cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.’ •
‘Man [sic], by the act of ordering the world according to a priori categories, finds the truth.
By limiting the world through ordering it according to the categories of the human mind, man
imposes his own finity on the world' (Haugaard, 2002: 184) • ‘there is nothing either good or
bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison’ (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)

Example: Knowledge/power in Higher education • How were/are definitions of (ab)normal &

better/worse developed? • E.g., 68.4% vs. 69.5% (= 2i vs. 1st degree) • E.g., what is a ‘top’
university? • E.g., business school/university rankings? • Real or constructed representations?
Disciplinary power (Foucault, 1977) • Bentham’s ‘panopticon’ • ‘Disciplinary’ practices •
Specification of rules/norms • Punishment for non-compliance • Constant surveillance •
Disciplinary ‘gaze' leads to ‘internalisation’ of external discourses • Crozier (1963) &
Mechanic (1962): control of uncertainty provides weaker participants power. • Post-modern’
control (neither +ve nor –ve) • E.g. CCTV; black box car insurance, Sesame Credit (China);
‘Nosedive’ (Black Mirror episode)

‘Big data’ (surveillance), AI & algorithms (ordering) exercising ‘disciplinary power’

(internalisatiion)? (Battilana & Casciaro, 2021; Ch 7)

Constructing context Effective organisations presumed to read & respond to context but
they also shape (disrupt) contexts • Rahm Emanuel: ‘never waste a crisis’ • ‘Solutions
waiting for a problem’ (March, et al 1972) • Grint (2005) describes constructing context
(types of problems) to fit with preferred solution • Certainty & critical problems need
command/ coercion (answers) • Tame problems need calculative/management/organisation •
Uncertainty & ‘wicked problems’ require soft/normative power (questions)

1) Hardy (2005): Understanding power & bringing strategic change

Power must be mobilised & targeted to bring about change • Power embedded in control
of resources, processes & meaning • Structure (e.g. hierarchy, matrix), systems (e.g. IT,
accounting), people (e.g. skills) & culture (e.g. strong/weak) also enable/constrain action (as
Foucault’s knowledge/power) • ‘Power-approach’ simultaneously targeting resources,
processes, structures & meaning to bring about change

2) Benford & Snow (2000): Framing social change

How to social movements bring about change? • ‘Diagnostic framing’ of problems •
‘Prognostic framing’ of solutions • ‘Motivational framing’ to mobilise action

3) The power of story telling

Stories shape action (Denning) • Some stories ‘stick’ (Chip & Dan Heath, 2008, ‘Made to
Stick’) • Beautiful stranger, the drink... • ... The morning after & bath of ice • Simple: find the
core of any idea • Unexpected: grab people's attention by surprising them • Concrete: an idea
that can be grasped & remembered later • Credible: Give an idea believability • Emotional:
Help people see the importance of an idea • Stories: empower people to use an idea through
narrative • ‘Post-truth’?

Leading social movement by ‘public narratives’ (Marshall Ganz) • Narrative construction of

reality (Bruner; Polkinghorne; Bauman; Giddens) • Motivate action through strategy (logos)
& narrative (values, emotion; pathos) • Story plots: Character (ethos), challenge, choice
(points), outcomes (moral), setting. • E.g. Xiye Batista (who witnessed climate change effects
in Mexico) & Fridays for Future 200,000 person climate strike, New York, 2019 (Battilana &
Casciaro, 2021; p120-125)

https://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_heimans_what_new_power_looks_like?language=en

HEURISTIC SHORTCUTS
‘Confirmation bias’, social media ‘echo-chambers’, tribalism (Davis, 2017, Post-Truth) ‘ •
‘Dunning-Kruger effect’ – the least able overestimate their ability • Kahan et al (2013):
‘Motivated numeracy & enlightened self-government’ - experiment analyzing evidence
relating to gun control: • ‘Numerate subjects use their quantitative-reasoning capacity
selectively to conform their interpretation of data to the result most consistent with their
political outlooks.’ • Nyhan & Reifler (2010) gave people contrasting fake newspaper articles
about the Iraq war regarding whether WMDs were found • Liberals believed the article
saying WMDs were not found; Conservatives believed the article saying WMDs were found •
‘The backfire effect’: facts contradicting what people want to believe strengthen their pre-
existing (wrong) view (e.g., Trump losing the election)

4) View conflicts & strikes Unitarist, pluralist, interactional, radical (Marxist view;
conflict between interests of capital (management) & labour (employees), so control-
resistance tension)

Rethinking resistance to change (Ford et al 2008) • ‘Change agent-centric view’: change

agents label ‘resistance’ as irrational, dysfunctional & blame failure on resistance • But
resistance may be due to communication breakdowns, failure to legitimate change,
dismissing scrutiny or ‘optimism bias’, violating trust • Resistance produced by both change
agents & recipients • Change agents need to understand the contextual background
influencing how people interpret change • Resistance can be productive, keeping
conversation alive (e.g., cancer network director); functional conflict strengthen commitment
to change • Conversations & good relations between change agents & recipients

Managing Organizational Change: Negotiating Meaning & Power-Resistance Relations

(Thomas et al 2011) • Constructing meaning during a cultural change programme •
Calculated engagement (defensive, protecting turf) & degenerative dialogues, oppositional
power-resistance relations; conceptual closure; sterility & stand off • Relational engagement
& productive/generative dialogue & facilitative powerresistance relations lead to conceptual
expansion, reframing & breakthrough

‘The silent politics of temporal work’ (McGivern et al. 2018) • Consultancy project: redesign
health care delivery to make ‘efficiency savings’ • Consultants construct problem as ‘critical’,
legitimating a fast-paced, shorttime project (silently suiting consultants’ short-term
performance management regime/ rapid career trajectories; “blitzing & leaving”) • NHS
managers/Drs saw problem as complex, slower & longer-term; dialogue to elicit buy from
local stakeholders “taking time for sustainable change” (reflecting NHS employees’ longer-
term careers & objectives) • NHS mangers/drs unable to overtly challenge consultants during
project, so superficially agreed redesign plan, then waited for its collapse during
implementation (after project ended, blaming consultants for failure) • “[NHS managers]
know it won’t deliver but in 3 months, it will be gone. Go with [consultants’] numbers, then
you attract less scrutiny in the meantime.”

7 Rules of Power 1. Get Out of Your Own Way: Get over imposter syndrome; realise those in
power may be there by luck or background (not necessarily ability); see see positives in
yourself; project yourself positively 2. Break the rules: Underdogs tend to win when they
disrupt/ don’t play by the rules 3. Appear powerful: People use emotional/intuitive ‘short-
cuts’, so appearances/ body language matter in how they make judgements 4. Build a
powerful brand: Promote yourself; tell (& repeat) your story 5. Network relentlessly: social
interactions & relations with high status people to build social capital & power (e.g., guanxi
in China) 6. Use your power: use power quickly when you get it; change structures/people to
stabilise/increase your power 7. Success excuses almost everything you may have done to
acquire power: easier to rationalise/justify what you’ve done when you have power
WEEK 8: MEASURING VALUE

This week we will examine the dynamics around measuring value in organisations.
We will use examples from financial and non-financial reporting to show that measuring value is
a selective process. That the selectivity of value measurement makes things political, as there are
choices about what is chosen to be valued and by whom.
Overall conditions and specific interests affect what is regarded as relevant for value creation. As
a result, many things that may be important to stakeholders are left unvalued and unreported.
So, value measurement represents different preferences, but also takes part in creating reality.

Why do organisations report on their performance?

• Publicly-traded for-profit organisations:
• Legal obligation • a better reputation may translate to higher stock prices
• Other organisations: Better reputation may lead to advances in a competitive field

How is performance measured? (in higher education)

• We quantify the resources and staff contact that have been dedicated to past students, we
look at the standards of entry and the likelihood that students will be supported to continue
their studies, before looking at how likely students are to be satisfied, to exceed expectations
of success and to have positive outcomes after completing the course. Bringing these
measures together, we get an overall score for each department and rank departments against
this.

• Entry standards This metric contributes 15% to the total score of a department, and refers to
those who entered the department in 2020/21. (Guardian University guide, 2023)
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/sep/24/methodology-behind-the-guardian-
university-guide-2023

How does value measurement affect organisations?

• Some public measures are not decided by the individual organisation, but by external bodies
• So, organisations may not like these measure • What may organisations do?

 change practices to improve their measured performance

Companies react to target-setting…

• Sir John Parker was commissioned by the government in 2015 to encourage greater
diversity in boardrooms. He set a target for all FTSE 100 boards to have at least one director
from a minority ethnic background by December 2021 • 94 of FTSE 100 companies have
appointed a director from a minority ethnic group, a sharp rise from five years ago when just
half had people from non-white communities in their boardrooms.
https://www.ft.com/content/a69e016d-0d10-45a8-bd95-76e314a14f38

AND even when organisations calculate the performance measures on their own and
they do not need to produce public measures of a certain format, they still do…

Sainsbury: We are making significant investments 2 to enhance our stores, which are
attracting more customers as shopping behaviours normalise post-pandemic, driving strong
satisfaction scores in supermarkets ahead of competitors.
https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/~/media/Files/S/Sainsburys/documents/reports-
andpresentations/2022/Interims%202223/J%20Sainsbury%20plc%20Interim%20Results
%202223_Statement.pdf

 develop, calculate and communicate alternative performance measures

Social Return Ratio = PV of benefits / PV of costs

SROI Rate = NPV business CF + NPV Social Benefits
Blended Value SROI (Total Business & Social Benefits) = Net Business Income + Net Social benefit

https://www.nestle.com/sustainability/climate-change VS
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/new Nestle plastic monster

https://makemymoneymat.wpenginepowered.com/wpcontent/uploads/2022/11/Climateaction-
report-%E2%80%93- November-2022.pdf

https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/our-workforce-data

What is the takeaway?

• The requirements, either formal or informal, to calculate and report on performance, affect
how organisations behave. • So, reporting does not only follow activity, but also shapes
organisational activities. • When we want to measure value-creation in organisations, we
must ask ‘value for whom?’ • So, we see that reporting has a political dimension, because the
organisation chooses what to report on and what not to disclose

Summary
• Measuring value is a selective process. • The selectivity makes things political: what is
chosen to be valued and by whom. • Overall conditions and specific interests affect what is
regarded as relevant for value-creation. • As a result, many things that may be important to
stakeholders are left unvalued and unreported. • So, value measurement is in ‘the eye of the
beholder’, but it also takes part in creating reality.
WEEK 9: EMOTIONS AT WORK

Exploring common assumptions • … is being emotional the opposite of of being rational? •

… are women more emotional than men? • … should leaders show emotion? • … should
emotions be “managed away and overcome”? • … are people either happy or unhappy at
work?

Why we bother with emotions at work? (Amabile & Kramer, 2007)

 every worker’s performance affected by constant interplay of perceptions, emotions and
motivations triggered by workday events, including managerial action
YET inner work life remains mostly invisible to management

“People may forget what you said and what you did, but they will never forget how you made
them feel”

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multilevel perspective. In F.

Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),

1. Within-person State affect; affective events; discrete emotions;

mood; behaviors
2. Between persons Trait affectivity, affective commitment; job
satisfaction; burnout; emotional intelligence
3. Interpersonal Interactions Emotional labor; emotional
exchange; displayed vs. felt emotion
4. Groups Affective composition; emotionally intelligent groups;
emotional contagion; leader-member exchange
5. Organization-wide policies; requirement for emotional labor;
stress and wellbeing; emotional climate and culture

I. What are emotions?

1) Appraisal Theory of Emotion (Lazarus (1999); Parkinson (1995))

Emotions are … ž functional and adaptive ž a reaction to an EVENT that is relevant to

individual and a result of an appraisal process creating meaning à identity-relevant ž driving
behaviour and motivation (self and others) ž communicating relevant information to others ž
forming groups and social realities

How does definition sit w/ everyday assumptions of emotions? Emotionality vs Rationality?

 Six Basic Universal Emotions (Paul Ekman)

Happiness Surprise. Fear. Anger. Disgust. Sadness.

2) Cultural emotions The expression of emotions and how emotions are perceived is
highly cultural and gendered

Brescoll & Uhlmann. "Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and
expression of emotion in the workplace." Psychological science 19.3 (2008): 268-275.

Are women more emotional than men? Gender differences in the experience of emotion
are a myth, but the consequences still play out at work
• Stereotypes about women being more emotional continue to persist in many cultures (e.g.
USA, Brescoll, 2016) • Differences exist for example in emotional regulation (Kaur et al.,
2022), but: • Research evidence generally does not support the stereotype about gender
differences in emotion (e.g. Weigard et al, 2021).

What is the issue with this stereotype? E.g. - Labelling women as more emotional is
undermining the legitimacy of their arguments (Frasca et al. 2022) - Implicit leadership
theories: Think manager, think male? Assumption that women less suited for leadership and
tough decision-making roles due to higher emotionality

II. Emotion processes at work

Emotions as two folded:

1. Consequence or outcome of work (Experience of work & organisation)
2. Goal, means, condition, part of work (having an impact on work & organisation)

 Consequences for behaviours and attitudes, eg. Behaviours: Withdrawal, OCBs, pro-
social behaviours, creativity; Attitudes/judgements: job satisfaction, commitment, trust etc.

1. Emotions = outcome of of work/job

Work/individual • Stress • Anxiety • Burnout • Flow • Pride

Group/interaction • Injustice/Justice •Conflict • Aggression • Sense of belonging • Emotional

contagion

Organization • Survivor Syndrome • Broken/fulfilled psychological contracts •

Loyalty/commitment

2. Emotions = part of doing work/job

Work/individual • Motivation • Emotion regulation • Emotional Intelligence

Group/interaction Emotional Labour • Emotion work • Charismatic leadership •

Selling/negotiating
Organization • Marketing • Retention (staff/customers) • Display/Feeling Rules

What are emotions about and what can be learn from them? Can you predict the outcome
of emotional episodes? What is the likely cause and consequence of these basic emotions?

Results from a study in the Chemical Industry: (N=369) Most dominant positive emotions in
last 2 weeks (in %) Joy/enthusiasm 41 Pride/satisfaction 24 Relief 9 Hope/anticipation 8
Liking 5 Thankfulness 4 Sympathy 3 Surprise 2 Other 4 Total 100
Kiefer (2002): Emotional landscape at work

Some consequences of emotions at work; Depends on the nature of emotions, but positive
and negative emotions are not the opposite of one dimension!

Positive Emotions (Approach) Increased engagement in work (but not in organization)

Reinforced social ties within the team, increased altruism Builds resources, learning and
creativity “Undo“ effects of negative emotions

Negative Emotions (Avoid) Withdrawal from organization (but not from work) Health
issues, exhaustion Loss of trust in management, cynicism Worry and frustration can also
trigger problem-solving

Summary and Conclusions • Emotions at work are often viewed as irrational or illogical and,
hence, as something that ought to be “overcome”, but: • Emotions are part and parcel of
everyday working life, a legitimate expression of experiences at work, serving adaptive and
social functions, • shaping cognition and behaviour and well-being – those of others. •
Understanding emotions means understanding how individuals perceive the world and what
they stand for (identity relevant). • Positive and negative emotions are not just ‘good’ and
‘bad’ or the polar opposite of each other. • Emotions are determined by powerful cultural
rules, and we use emotions to achieve our goals (emotion work, emotion regulation).

https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/quiz/2014/apr/01/compound-emotions-
ohio-state-university-quiz 

Reflect critically on the following questions and take notes:  

1. How well does the quiz capture your emotional intelligence and/or ability to
understand people's emotions?   

2.  In your view, can emotional intelligence be measured and how? By Emotional
intelligence we mean the ability to recognize and manage one's own as well as
others' emotions.     

2. Reflect on your personal experiences with emotions at work (20min).

1. Think about examples of (a) when emotions got in the way of getting a job
done and (b) when emotions helped you get a job done.  The can be related
your "job" as a student or an example from your work place. The situation
can involve just you or a group of people.   

2. Note down 2 examples each. Why did the emotions get in the way or help
this particular situation?  How could you have dealt with your or others'
emotions differently for a different outcome?   

3. Different cultures can have different views of the role of emotion. In your
culture, how are positive and negative emotions perceived in your culture?
Take notes and be specific.   

4. Have you experienced any cultural differences in how the role of emotions at
work is perceived in different cultures or subcultures?  Again, explain.   

3. Reflect on the following emotions and think about the following four points (30min).
Please do not google the questions. We are interested in your personal and cultural
views. There are no right or wrong answers.  

1. What is the essence of this emotion. What is it about? In other words, what is
the same in each situation when we experience a certain emotion?  

2. What do people tend to do when they experience this emotion (behaviour

wise?).  
 3. What colour and/or temperature do you associate with the emotion? Where
in the body is the emotion located?   

Discuss each of the following emotions answering the 3 points for : Anger, Fear, Shame,
Frustration, Excitement, Pride, Hope.   

Here is an example for Sadness. (1) Sadness is about the experience loss of someone or
something that we hold dear. (2) Wanting to be alone. (3) black and blue and the feeling is cold.