(Larson 1989, p. 46) Here, members of an organization thrive by observing others and rationalizing their actions according to comparisons made with themselves against other people. The upshot is people tend to conform to what is popular at the expense of individualism because that is the safe and easy way to move forward and get things done.
This environment is dangerous when we talk of social learning theory because employees’ negative actions are collectively learned from each other.
First off, communication occupies the utmost importance in the whole equation. Nike has reportedly suffered a $100 million loss in a quarter as a result of a miscommunication between the management and the company’s techies. According to Sharon Morgen (2005), the technicians were waiting for the Nike management for decisions, while the management, for its part, was expecting the techies to make the decision. As a result, an important project was botched and has generated not just loss of money but an incidence of bad blood between the parties concerned.
Certainly, talking with and involving all of the people involved in the decision-making process is one of the best ways to avoid the alienation of labor that Karl Marx fretted so much about… If they own the decision, if it is as much theirs as yours [the CEO’s], it becomes impossible to excuse later performance deficits with standard “it wasn’t my idea” excuse. It was their idea. (p. 159)
Suggestions on changes are mostly on decision-making fronts. First off, whether it is big-decisions or minor ones, such as deciding on a new corporate logo, it should call for participation and input from everyone. The idea is that there should be a group ownership of a decision so as to remove the stigma of corporate autocratic impulses.
Secondly, there should be a delegation of authority not of responsibility.