Although a substantial body of evidence indicates that flexible and participative work arrangements make possible significant performance advantages o...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Although a substantial body of evidence indicates that flexible and participative work arrangements make possible significant performance advantages over more traditional centralized and hierarchical structures, the proportion of businesses that have so transformed themselves remains quite small. Why, then, do firms that purport to be rationally acting organizations appear to resist the very methods that would best equip them to achieve their stated goals?
One line of analysis points toward the phenomenon of structural inertia, suggesting that organizations are "imprinted" with the conditions under which they were born, tending thereafter to cling to long-established routines, production methods, and identities. A second approach fastens on resistance to change among middle managers, who are said to view new work practices as threats to their traditional status and authority. A third approach suggests that because firms have tended to adopt innovations singly, rather than in clusters, the firms often fail to achieve far-reaching organization change.
Although each of these perspectives contains a partial truth, each one is limited. Analysis using the concept of structural inertia tends to emphasize the conservative aspects of organizational culture and to neglect inside factors as sources of change. While theories of managerial resistance have stressed the importance of within-firm political processes, they often endow upper levels of management with an omniscience and openness to egalitarian practices that upper-level managers do not possess. Finally, the last approach often views new practices as if they exist in a vacuum—as if they are unmediated by the manner in which they are introduced.
An alternative approach builds on developments within industrial sociology. The outcome of workplace change initiatives is shaped in large part by the social and organizational processes that unfold during the implementation of new work practices. In other words, workplace change is not akin to a surgical procedure performed under anesthesia. Rather, it constitutes a negotiated phenomenon in which the language and strategies that particular occupational groups employ can either blur or sharpen the boundaries that exist within the firm. Where workplace change fails to transform existing organizational patterns, the reasons may stem less from the nature of the innovations than from the processes that surround and shape their introduction.
In criticizing the "second approach" to explaining the supposed lack of rational transformation of the workplace, the author most likely assumes which of the following?
1. Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify what the author assumes when criticizing the "second approach" to explaining workplace transformation resistance. The second approach, as stated in the passage, "fastens on resistance to change among middle managers, who are said to view new work practices as threats to their traditional status and authority."
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we know that the author critiques the second approach by saying it "often endow[s] upper levels of management with an omniscience and openness to egalitarian practices that upper-level managers do not possess." This criticism reveals what the author assumes about these theories - that they incorrectly portray upper management as wise and open to change when implementing new practices.
Prethinking:
For the author's criticism to make sense, there must be an underlying assumption that the second approach theories actually do depict upper management as attempting workplace transformations. The author's critique only works if these theories assume upper management is trying to implement changes (which middle managers then resist). If the theories didn't involve upper management attempting changes at all, then criticizing them for portraying upper management as "omniscient and open" would be irrelevant.
Why It's Wrong:
• This choice focuses on what upper management actually does, not what the second approach theories assume
• The author's criticism is about how theories portray upper management, not about upper management's real behavior
• This misses the distinction between theoretical assumptions and actual management practices
Common Student Mistakes:
- Confusing what theories assume with what actually happens in reality?
→ Focus on what the criticized theories claim, not on real-world management behavior - Thinking the author is making claims about upper management's actual encouragement of policies?
→ The author is critiquing theoretical assumptions, not describing real management actions
Why It's Right:
• The author's criticism only makes sense if the second approach theories assume upper management attempts workplace transformation
• The critique about "omniscience and openness" implies these theories portray upper management as trying to implement egalitarian changes
• For middle manager resistance to be the focus, there must be upper management initiatives to resist against
Key Evidence: "While theories of managerial resistance have stressed the importance of within-firm political processes, they often endow upper levels of management with an omniscience and openness to egalitarian practices that upper-level managers do not possess."
Why It's Wrong:
• This describes the first approach's limitation (structural inertia), not the second approach's limitation
• The passage analysis shows the first approach "neglect[s] inside factors as sources of change," not the second approach
• This confuses which theory has which specific limitation
Common Student Mistakes:
- Mixing up the specific criticisms of different approaches?
→ Review each approach's individual limitation as outlined in the passage - Thinking all approaches have the same problems?
→ The author gives distinct, specific criticisms for each of the three approaches
Why It's Wrong:
• This describes the third approach's limitation (piecemeal adoption), not the second approach's problem
• The passage shows the third approach views practices "as if they exist in a vacuum—as if they are unmediated by the manner in which they are introduced"
• This incorrectly attributes one theory's weakness to a different theory
Common Student Mistakes:
- Confusing which specific criticism applies to which approach?
→ Each of the three approaches has a distinct limitation clearly outlined in sequence - Thinking the mediation criticism applies to the manager resistance theory?
→ The mediation issue specifically targets the piecemeal adoption approach, not managerial resistance
Why It's Wrong:
• This contradicts what the second approach actually claims - it does address middle manager resistance as the central issue
• The passage explicitly states the second approach "fastens on resistance to change among middle managers"
• The author's criticism isn't that this approach ignores middle manager resistance, but that it wrongly portrays upper management
Common Student Mistakes:
- Thinking the author criticizes the second approach for ignoring its own main focus?
→ The second approach specifically centers on middle manager resistance - that's its primary claim - Misunderstanding that the criticism targets the approach's assumptions about upper management, not lower management?
→ The author's critique focuses on how these theories incorrectly characterize upper-level managers