OZCO’s reputation for having a “family feeling” among its employees, for instance, they accept the pay cut to avoid the mass layoff (in an integration view).But in a differentiation view, to avoid the mass layoffs, OZCO gives employees a less payment and two days a month off as the additional compensation, which doesn’t always meet the commitment to egalitarianism. This contrast impressed me a lot.
OZCO’s integration study reminds me of “all for one and one for all”, reflected the Mao’s socialism expansion after the Second World War, the labors in state-owned cooperation were highly motivated and strive for the collective culture—led by the Marxism-Leninism ideology. But the integration of Mao’s “all for one and one for all” gradually transformed, the integration becomes the large scope of the organizational goal (no matter an organization is state owned or individual owned). Eventually socialism factories failed because there’s always differentiation and fragmentations as integration might be temporary or time assuming. Subculture and impermeable would always have ambiguities. What interested me a lot is that from the differentiation perspective, as from the integration viewpoint, ambiguity is the “chaos underlying culture”.
As culture is always consists of a large diversities, and in contrast, shared ideas as well, what is imperative to choose the OZCO case for fulfilling the three perspectives?
Could we name the three perspectives (integration, differentiation and fragmentation) as paradigm or discourse? What are the key features in OZCO study that are normative?
No comments:
Post a Comment