top of page

One area of study is the metaphors of Morgan (1986). The metaphors are organizations as machines, as organisms, as brains, as cultures, as political systems, as psychic prisons, as flux and transformation, and organizations as instruments of domination. Demonstrate how the metaphors compare to organizational theory applied to the home organization. Discuss the similarities between managing and parenting. Place an emphasis on organizational theory in the business sector with comparisons to the home organization.


Although there is an immense amount of interest in organization theory, research continues to find new ideas and methods. One area of study is the metaphors of Morgan. The intent of this paper is to demonstrate how the metaphors compare to organizational theory applied to the home organization. The similarities between managing and parenting are discussed. An emphasis is placed on organizational theory in the business sector with comparisons on how to incorporate those precepts into the home organization.


The whole community needs to realize that the home organization plays the central role in deciding the future of society. It must be recognized that the home, as an organization, is a critical factor to an individual’s quality of life. Therefore, physical, psychological, developmental, and organizational factors must be considered in choosing the type of home organization that is structured.

Morgan (1986) published metaphors of organizational theory to be used by organizations and businesses that are looking for new ways of designing and managing organizational life. The metaphors include facets that consider organizations from different viewpoints. Organizations are seen as machines, systems, intelligent, cultural, political, psychic prisons, components of change, and as instruments of domination. The following document, through the use and comparison of the metaphors, hopes to inform parents that when organizational theory and business strategies are applied to home management, a superior process for the development of the home organization occurs.

A View of Home Management in Machine Terms

Mechanistic concepts of organization accompanied the industrial revolution. New procedures and techniques were also introduced by the militaries of this period. Classical management theorists “sought to codify their experience of successful management for others to follow.” The basic thrust of their thinking is captured in the idea that management is a process of planning, organization, command, coordination, and control. In examining these principles closely, one finds that the classical theorists were, in effect, designing the organization exactly as if they were designing a machine (Morgan, 1986, pp. 25, 26).

Authoritative parenting. Centralization of authority, discipline, and other aspects of classical theory correspond with the theory of authoritative parenting. Mayseless, Scharf, and Sholt (2003, p.1) note that “Baumrind’s (1971) typology of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting is one of the major current conceptualizations of parenting styles, though subject to different critiques (e.g., Lewis, 1981) and several revisions (Baumrind, 1983, 1991a, 1991b; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). In general, authoritative parents are described as responsive and demanding; warm and involved; and consistent in establishing and enforcing guidelines, limits, and developmentally appropriate expectations, and allowing and promoting autonomous behavior and decision making.”

These characteristics are seen as involving three central dimensions: acceptance, behavioral control or monitoring, and psychological autonomy granting (Gray & Steinberg, 1999). In contrast, authoritarian parents are depicted as demanding, using power-assertive practices, and being low in responsiveness, whereas permissive parents are depicted as being somewhat responsive but not demanding.

Over several decades of research, authoritative parenting has proven to be linked to an extensive range of positive cognitive and socioemotional outcomes. For example, authoritative parenting has been associated with better academic achievement (Weiss & Schwarz, 1996; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000); better adjustment, that is, less psychological distress, fewer problem behaviors, better peer relations (Fuligni & Eccles, 1993; Slicker, 1998); higher levels of competence; and higher self-esteem, autonomy, and self-reliance (Baumrind, 1983; Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988).

Previous research examined authoritative parenting as a shared collection of several parenting practices. However, Gray and Steinberg (1999) suggest dismantling the paradigm and examining the separate contributions of the three central dimensions of authoritative parenting: acceptance, behavioral control, and psychological autonomy granting. Gray and Steinberg found that acceptance contributed to lower levels of behavior problems, better psychosocial development, lower distress, and higher academic competence. Autonomy granting also contributed to all of these outcomes, and behavioral control contributed the most to lower levels of behavior problems.

The three central dimensions of authoritative parenting―acceptance, behavioral control, and psychological autonomy granting―are components of classical management theory, although authoritative parenting theory uses different terms in describing many of the same principles.

Eleven Principles of Classical Management Theory

The following are 11 principles of classical management theory. Their use is widespread today and has application to the home organization. The drawback to their use is that organizations are made up of people, not machines, and such approaches can be dehumanizing or bureaucratic (Morgan, 1986).

The first principle is unity of command and the scalar chain. In machine terms, this means an employee should receive orders from only one superior (Morgan, 1986). However, in the home, there are usually two superiors and many times, they have conflicting outlooks as to how situations should be handled. In addition, when the two supervisors are not present, one of the employees is usually put in control. There needs to be a line of authority―a scalar chain (Morgan, 1986); but employees (the children) need to be taught to think and act for themselves, which is a component of authoritative parenting (Gray & Steinberg, 1999).

The second principle of classical management theory is the span of control. The number of people reporting to one supervisor must not be so large that it creates problems of communication and coordination (Morgan, 1986). The home organization easily falls into this span, although communication should work as a matrix and not have to flow up and down the chain.

Staff and line, authority, and responsibility are other principles. The mechanistic view is that the staff personnel provide valuable advisory services but should be careful to not violate line authority (Morgan, 1986).

This is true to the extent that the supervisors are correct and legal in their dealings. When a superior is committing unlawful or immoral activities, the employee is not bound to obey. Nevertheless, when the superior is correct, exact obedience should be maintained.

The machine principle that states that an individual should always have appropriate authority to execute a responsibility is true application (Morgan, 1986). Many times, however, especially in home management, responsibility without authority is given. On the other hand, the opposite happens, authority without responsibility is given (Dobson, 1992). Both are management errors, because the main goal of the home organization is to develop future leaders of its employees.

Initiative is the fourth principle. This is to be encouraged at all levels of the organization (Morgan, 1986). Initiative is a difficult task to achieve in the home because the employees are guaranteed long-term employment and cannot be terminated. Hence, motivation and accountability have to be instilled somehow within the employees. Maccoby and Martin (1983) observe that authoritative parents allow and promote autonomous behavior and decision making.

The fifth principle of classical theory is division of work. In a machine environment, this becomes very specialized, as to obtain efficiency (Morgan, 1986). However, the purpose of the home is not efficiency of the organization and worker but the effectiveness of the organization in producing employees that are responsible, effective, and productive. Therefore, each employee needs opportunity to develop all required skills (Dobson, 1992). Thus, a specialization is against the purpose of this organization.

However, it is easier for managers to have specialized tasks for each employee, so such is the trend. There should be a degree of organizational structure so that work is completed in a timely manner and the workers receive the training needed to complete and master the task.

Centralization of authority is necessary in any organization and is another principle of classical theory (Morgan, 1986). Although a dictatorship is not warranted, someone must take control and lead. Final decisions are the responsibility of this person or persons. In the home, this should be the supervisor not the employees.

Discipline. Obedience, application, energy, behavior, and outward marks of respect in accordance with agreed rules and customs (Morgan, 1986). The machine definition of discipline is perfect for home management. The main point is in accordance with agreed rules and customs (Morgan, 1986). Many times home managers have failed to establish rules and customs pertaining to their organization. The employees should have input and agree to the rules, customs, and consequences of not following such (Dobson, 1992).

The eighth principle of classical management theory is that of subordination of individual interest to general interest (Morgan, 1986). Although a balance must be maintained, each home should have a mission statement and a vision of what they hope to accomplish or achieve. Short-term as well as long-term goals should be set (Covey, 1997). These allow subordination of individual interest to general interest to become the norm be cause each member turns from himself or herself and begins to see the organization as a whole (Morgan, 1986).

Equity, the ninth principle, is based on kindness and justice―to encourage personnel in their duties; and fair remuneration, which encourages morale, yet does not lead to overpayment (Morgan, 1986).

This is a very difficult principle for home managers to incorporate. Fair remuneration in one home may be nothing, whereas another deems 10 dollars a worthy compensation.

The problem in such discrepancies is that in one organization the employee is taught to work for the remuneration of satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment, or just because it is a duty that needs to be fulfilled for the home to prosper. On the other hand, the home employee who is always compensated through financial or material means may develop the attitude that service/duty always demands a high price. This employee will eventually find it difficult when he or she enters the real forces of the marketplace (Hohman, 1941).

Stability of tenure of personnel. To facilitate the development of abilities (Morgan, 1986). This is extremely important to home management, because this is one of the organization’s primary goals.

Esprit de corps. To facilitate harmony as a basis of strength (Morgan, 1986). If the home managers can do this, the organization will be able to survive just about any calamity.

A View of the Home Organization as a System

Before an organization can approach its learning curve and decide as to whether it is using single-loop or double-loop learning principles to guide it, several other concepts must be put into place and first understood (Morgan, 1986).

Each organization, which consists of individuals who belong to groups, is influenced by other organizations in an ever-widening sphere. This is the concept of boundary and environment. Organizational theorists have divided the environment into two parts: The task environment is the everyday functioning of the organization, and the second part is how the group interacts with others who have an immediate impact on the organization’s well-being (Morgan, 1986).

The contextual environment, however, is much broader. It contains the forces that shape the overall operations of the organization, whether it is political, social, cultural, economic, and so forth (Morgan, 1989, p. 72).

“Intelligent organizations scan their environments and position themselves to deal with the challenges that lie ahead” (Morgan, 1989, p. 73). Sometimes fine-tuning, existing activities is what is needed; other times the organization may have to conduct major transformations. This is where single-loop and double-loop learning principles are initiated. The single-loop is used for fine-tuning. This is when detected outcomes and assumptions are modified to keep organizational performance within the ranges set by organizational norms (Morgan, 1989, p. 139).

The double-loop is used when major transactions are to be changed or conducted. This is when the organizational norms themselves are modified (Morgan, 1986).

A holographic organization seeks to use both learning instruments, to achieve a balance and wholeness. An example of this type of balance, which is known as deutero-learning (Morgan, 1989), is the child who when very young responds to single-loop learning by being influenced through only the internal or task environment of the home.

As the child grows to an adolescent, the learning curve is modified because the external or contextual environment now influences the child. Double-loop learning must now be incorporated and combined with single-loop learning so that when the adolescent is confronted with conflicting requirements, he or she will be able to recognize the conflict and maintain effective performance and decision making.

A View of the Home Organization as Brains

To create an intelligent organization several steps must be taken, the first of which is to enact a theory of communication and learning that was developed through the science of Cybernetics (Morgan, 1986).

The theory stresses four key principles: “First, that systems must have the capacity to sense, monitor, and scan significant aspects of their environment. Second, that they must be able to relate this information to the operating norms that guide system behavior. Third, that they must be able to detect significant deviations from these norms. And fourth, that they must be able to initiate corrective action when discrepancies are detected (Morgan, 1986, pp. 86, 87).

The second step to creating an intelligent organization is ensuring that the organization learns and learns how to learn. Barriers to learning must be recognized and overcome. Learning should be monitored to see whether it is single-loop or double-loop learning (Morgan, 1986).

The third step and final step is to organize in such a way that the organization becomes a holographic system: “to create a vision of organization where capacities required in the whole are enfolded in the parts, allowing the system to learn and self-organize, and to maintain a complete system of functioning even when specific parts malfunction or are removed (Morgan, 1986, p. 95).

Holographic principles of design that facilitate the self-organization are

· Get the whole into parts.

· Create connectivity and redundancy.

· Create simultaneous specialization and generalization.

· Create a capacity to organize.

(Morgan, 1986, pp. 97, 98)

Therefore, an intelligent organization is one from which patterns of learning and order may emerge, thus ensuring an organization capable of change and adapting to change.

Barriers to learning and innovation must be acknowledged, challenged, and overcome for the organization to be an intelligent one. If the organization is not “able to change itself to accommodate the ideas it produces and values, it is likely to block its own innovations (Morgan, 1986, p. 105). Hence, the greatest barrier to an intelligent organization is the inability to change and respond to its environments, whether internal or external. This is especially true of the home organization.

A View of the Home Organization in Cultural Terms

“One of the easiest ways of appreciating the nature of culture and subculture is simply to observe the day-to-day functioning of a group or organization to which one belongs, as if one were an outsider. Adopt the role of an anthropologist. The characteristics of the culture being observed will gradually become evident as one becomes aware of the patterns of interactions between individuals, the language that is used, the images and themes explored in conversation, and the various rituals of daily routine. And as one explores the rationale for these aspects of culture, one usually finds that there are sound historical explanations for the way things are done (Morgan, 1986, p. 121).

The methods used to manage with meaning in an organization use the characteristics that are observed. A leader, who studies the interaction and language between individuals, the conversations, and daily rituals of the organization, will recognize the opportunities and drawbacks of such practices (Morgan, 1986).

The leader will note that just because something has been done a certain way for a certain amount of time doesn’t necessarily mean that it is working currently or that it will continue to work in the future. However, at the same time, if it is successful, he or she will know to leave it as it is. Much can be learned from knowing the history of an organization, culture, or person. The history will give a basis for the immediate response (Morgan, 1986).

An example of this type of leadership is in the home organization. A parent, who simply does something because his parents and grandparents did it, can be presented with either a negative or positive aspect. If it is a tradition that encourages family unity and helps the interaction between individuals, then it is worth promoting. On the other hand, if it is an action, such as derogatory language, that stifles conversation between individuals or demeans the individual’s sense of worth, then it is a practice that should be discarded regardless of its history (Dobson, 1992).

Many times old styles can be adapted or modified in new ways that will change the meaning of the culture of the organization so that opportunities for growth, development, and creativity are promoted and the drawbacks of useless customs, irrelevant information, and corrupting behaviors are eliminated (Morgan, 1986).

Harding (2000) talks about four types of culture:

Power culture. Many small enterprises and large conglomerates display the characteristics of a centralized power culture. This culture is like a web with a ruling spider. Those in the web are dependent on a central power source. Rays of power and influence spread out from a central figure or group.

Role culture. Often referred to as a bureaucracy, it works by logic and rationality. Its pillars represent functions and specialisms. Departmental functions are delineated and empowered with their role, for example, the finance department, the design department, and so on. Work within and between departments (pillars) is controlled by procedures, role descriptions, and authority definitions.

Task (project team) culture. Imagine this culture as a net with small teams of cells at the interstices. It is very much a small team approach to organizations. The modern jargon also refers to organizational arrangements, such as network organization―small organizations cooperating together to deliver a project. Therefore, the large organization consists of lots of little ones that make their contribution.

Person culture. The individual is the central point. If there is a structure, it exists only to serve the individuals within it. If a group of individuals decides to band together to do his or her own thing and an office or secretary would help, it is a person culture. The culture exists for only the people concerned; it has no super-ordinate objective.

The home organization should have parts of all four. The power culture has the parents leading the home, and their influence spreading out to their children. R oles are necessary, at times, as well as the division of tasks. The home is also a person culture in that its purpose is to serve the individual members.

The culture of an organization can become a trap to that organization when it leads to behaviors that are counter-productive (Morgan, 1996). This is why the home organization must carefully monitor its culture to safeguard its product.

The first trap is to rely solely on the history of the culture, that is, the “we’ve always done it this way” mentality. This is blind leadership and ignorant or noncaring followers. The culture, at this point, is doomed to fail along with the organization, as history has shown that change is constant (Harding, 2000).

The second trap is when policy, dictatorship, greed, or self-centered thinking mold interaction between individuals. Under these circumstances, the interaction stifles originality, cooperation, and a consideration for the well-being of others and the organization (Harding, 2000). In the home, this trap leads to a win-lose attitude. But the more one can move toward the kind of creative and synergistic interaction in which everyone wins, the more beautiful, the more effective, the family culture will be (Covey, 1997).

The third trap is when the culture of the organization has language that is debasing, confining, or conflicting. For example, if an employee is made to feel inferior, or that new ideas are not welcomed, or is given conflicting policies, he or she will cease to communicate, and the language of the group will mean nothing (Harding, 2000).

Briggs (1975) notes that one of the biggest problems facing almost any organization are those of people who are thorns to others. More progress is snagged on interpersonal relationships than one may fully realize.

The images and themes explored in conversation are entrapments when they become petty gossip, ignorant politics, or flowery flattery. On the other hand, when the images and themes have meaning and unite the employees, the conversation becomes a powerful tool to find answers, promote teamwork, and spark creativity (Morgan, 1996).

The final trap is when the daily rituals or traditions become too scheduled or bureaucratic. The manager must always look for new ways to foster the meaning of culture by bringing fun and invigorating rituals to the daily routine of the organization (Harding, 2000).

Covey (1997) points out that “When parents and children cultivate traditions that are meaningful to them, every time they go back to that tradition it renews the emotional energy and bonding of the past” (p. 280).

A View of the Home Organization in Political Terms

The pluralist manager recognizes that conflict and power plays can serve both positive and negative functions; therefore, the main concern is to manage conflict in ways that will benefit the overall organization or, more egoistically, in ways that will endorse his or her own wellbeing within the organization” (Morgan, 2001).

The benefits and drawbacks of being a power broker and conflict manager come from the perspective and goals of both the organization and the individual. For example, if the person has the same goals as the organization, there will be no conflict of interest. Yet, if the two goals are not compatible, the person as Morgan (2001) states, will promote his or her own interests within the organization. This will, at some point, lead to the individual becoming a restraining force within the organization instead of being a building force for the organization.

This applies directly to a value system or religion. Marriage is perhaps the hardest task that an adult will face, and without mutual values, it is nearly impossible (Burr, Yorgason, & Baker, 1982).

In the home, a conflict of interest will also be apparent, especially when it concerns gender roles. If the couple has separate individual goals, and these goals are not compatible with the goals that they have set for the home, there will be conflict and gender-related politics (Harley, 1994).

Most divorces and separations have resulted as one individual or both have selfishly pursued their own interests over the benefit and well-being of the home organization (Harley, 1994). Each partner must come to terms with his or her own goals and expectations of himself or herself. Then they must work together to set mutual goals and expectations of each other. Boundaries should be clear and environmental factors given consideration (Burr, Yorgason, & Baker, 1982).

As adults engage in a cause greater than themselves (value system), they should have a clear understanding of the family’s vision and what their role is in fulfilling the mission of their home. Just because their parents had used traditional domination, it does not mean it should be used now. If both partners have the same vision, it will be more difficult for one partner to be selfish, to manipulate, or to have unreasonable expectations of the other (Covey, 1997).

A View of the Home Organization as a Psychic Prison

As the allegory of the cave suggests, ”Many of us often resist or ridicule efforts at enlightenment, preferring to remain in the dark rather than risk exposure to a new world and its treat to the old ways (Morgan, 1986, p. 200). If a manager or parent is aware of this image of entrapment and the causes of such, he or she will be more effective in helping his or her employees to overcome barriers, whether real or imagined (Change, 2001).

The first way that a manager can help his or her employees become more effective is to eliminate organized inefficiencies. These are built in margins for error and have been the guiding principles of design for organizations. The result has been institutionalized inefficiency. Such things as buffer stocks of inventory and work in progress have allowed production systems to absorb uncertainties, but they are expensive and they provide leeway for people to engage in sloppy work (Morgan, 1986, p. 201).

Therefore, a manager should eliminate policies that encourage such inefficiencies. “When there are no buffer stocks to absorb error, people can no longer work as if they are isolated. They have to recognize their dependence on one another and ensure that they make a full and timely contribution to the work process” (Morgan, 1986, p. 200).

In the home organization, parents become buffers for their children. They do this through isolation or by allowing lack of accountability and irresponsibility in their children (Dobson, 1992).

The second method that a manager may use to increase organizational effectiveness is to distinguish how bureaucratic and formal the organization has become. “The bureaucratic approach to organization tends to foster the rational, analytical, and instrumental characteristics associated with the Western stereotype of maleness, while downplaying abilities traditionally viewed as “female,” such as intuition, nurturing, and empathetic support (Morgan, 1986, p. 211).

Yet transformation in the new global economy and in the home require that both sets of organizational values be incorporated. The traditional male and female roles are both needed to have a balance and to inspire meaning (Morgan, 1986).

Finding meaning in one’s life is the third objective of helping an organization become more effective. Behavior within organizations depends on the creation of culture (Morgan, 1986).

“In creating organizations we create structures of activity that are larger than life and that often survive for generations. Moreover, in becoming identified with such organizations we ourselves find meaning and permanence. As we invest ourselves in our work, our roles become our realities” (Morgan, 1986, p. 200). This is especially important in the home, because this unit of organization does indeed survive for generations.

The fourth concept is to eliminate unnecessary anxiety or to help one’s employees deal with anxiety. Bion (1959) has shown that in anxiety-provoking situations, groups tend to revert to one of three styles of operation that use different kinds of defense against anxiety.

The dependency mode is when the group has decided that some form of leadership is needed to resolve the predicament. Whether or not the chosen leader will be able to solve the problem is irrelevant to this type of group. They are concerned mainly with eliminating the burden from themselves (Bion, 1959).

The second style is called pairing. This involves a fantasy type of messiah figure that will deliver the group from its fear and anxiety. The first and second group’s dependence on such leadership paralyzes both and prevents either from taking effective action (Bion, 1959).

The third style is what Bion (1959) describes as fight-flight. The group members of the fight-flight style tend to project their fears on some type of enemy. This may be an actual person, a regulation or policy, a competitor, a public attitude, or another organization.

The group forms a strong bond in “fighting” this enemy, but the reality of the problem may be distorted and the root of the anxiety never discovered (Bion, 1959).

Hence, a manager or parent should determine what pattern of response the group is experiencing. He or she should also find out whether the defense mechanism is in place because of valid fears or whether the perception of the group is faulty. Either way, the manager or parent must alleviate those concerns before the group will be effective and efficient (Bion, 1959).

The last concept is the Kleinian theory developed by Donald Winnicott. This theory of object relations emphasizes the role of transitional objects in human development. These objects, such as a teddy bear in one’s childhood, provide a bridge between the child’s internal and external world (Morgan, 1986).

“In Winnicott’s view the relationship with such objects continues throughout life, the doll, teddy bear, or blanket gradually being replaced by other objects and experiences that mediate one’s relations with one’s world and help one maintain a sense of identity. In later life a valued possession, a collection of letters, a cherished dream, or perhaps a valued attribute, skill, or ability may come to act as a substitute for our lost doll or teddy, symbolizing for us and reassuring us about who we actually are and where we stand in the wider world” (Morgan, 1986, p. 220).

For many people, their work and profession becomes this object. For children it is their place in their family, school, and community. A wise manager or parent will help instill this sense of accomplishment and foster a sense of identity. The only danger is when change endangers this sense of identity. The employee or child at that point might be ineffective, as they perceive the change as dangerous to them. Therefore, the manager or parent must present the change in a way that does not endanger the identity or control of the individual. The change should be under the control of the employee or child, when possible, so that he or she may establish a new sense of accomplishment and further his or her role as a person of worth (Morgan, 1986).

A View of the Home Organization as a Component of Change

Morgan (1986) observes that, “As human beings who are able to make choices, we have in principle the ability to shape and influence the future, at least to some degree” (p. 272). In initiating change, the manager may solve one problem, but if the underlying culture and energy flow of the organization remains flawed, more problems will surface later. Morgan also notes that “The way one formulates basic problems is critical in determining the way they will be solved” (p. 269).

Social learning theory suggests that behavior is taught and maintained through social influences, such as parents, peers, and religious institutions (Aker, 1985). As such, these influences become components of change. A conventional belief in societal laws and norms is assumed to be the primary motivational factor that regulates delinquent behavior (Brent, 1997). Many of society’s conventional beliefs are founded on religion (Durkheim, 1951; Stark & Glock, 1968) but often are interpreted and articulated by family and other social institutions. It has been suggested that parental attachment is the initial bonding experience that leads to an acceptance of and commitment to conventional beliefs, and thereby conventional behavior (Brent, 1997).

Parent involvement may also be a protective factor for urban youth at high risk of developing conduct problems. Much of the research examining the relationship between parenting practices and behavioral problems among youth has focused on dysfunctional parenting practices, such as hostile, punitive, shaming, rejecting, or overcontrolling practices (e.g., Ruchkin, 2002).

However, a smaller, but important and growing area of research on the topic of resilience has found that positive parenting characteristics are associated with reduced conduct problems, even among high-risk children (Masten, 1994). For example, a recent study examined the extent to which parent support (i.e., parent communication, concern, and supervision) promoted resilience across seven functional domains (e.g., delinquency/school misconduct, depression/anxiety, interpersonal relations) over a 2-year period among inner-city youth exposed to community violence (O’Donnell, Schwab-Stone, & Muyeed, 2002).

Among this high-risk sample, parent support was a strong predictor of resilience for all seven domains, especially for the domains of self-reliance, substance abuse, delinquency/school misconduct, and depression. Therefore, parents have the power to initiate change in their children and to teach them that they themselves are components of change that, “As human beings who are able to make choices, we have in principle the ability to shape and influence the future, at least to some degree” (p. 272) and the future they are influencing is their own (Morgan, 1986).

Another aspect of initiating change is to think laterally, something that helps one to see “how the characteristics of possible futures may be enfolded in the dispositions and tendencies of the present” (Morgan, 1986, p. 272). This is how the “energy” of change works. Thinking, brainstorming, finding alternative answers are all about energy and change. The wise leader will allow such energy and not stifle it. In other words, to have true change, the energy must be allowed to flow (Morgan, 1989).

A View of the Home Organization as an Instrument of Domination

“Domination arises when one or more persons coerce others through the direct use of threat or force. However, domination also occurs in more subtle ways, as when a ruler can impose his or her will on others while being perceived as having a right to do so” (Morgan, 1986, p. 276).

The entrapment occurs when the person fails to continue to struggle against the obstacle. Procrastination, fear of change, lack of knowledge, lack of character, fatigue, and so forth, are examples of why an individual or organization might choose to give in to or create a false reality.

Many organizations and employees are trapped by the false assumption that the situation or environment in which they find themselves is the deciding factor. It must be noted that human motivation rarely actualizes itself in behavior, except in relation to the situation and to other people. This fact, of course, must be taken into account of its effect on the role of cultural determination (Maslow, 1970).

However, one must be careful “against too great preoccupation with the exterior, with the culture, the environment, or the situation” (Maslow, 1970, p. 24). Our central object of study here is, after all, the organism or the character structure. It is easy to go to the extreme in situation theory of making the organism just one additional object in the field, equivalent with perhaps a barrier, or some object, that he or she tries to obtain. One must remember that the individual partly creates his or her barriers and his or her objects of value, that they must be defined partially in terms set by the particular organism in the situational. I know of no way of defining or describing a field universally in such a way that this description can be independent of the particular organism functioning within it. It certainly must be pointed out that a child who is trying to attain a certain object of value to him or her, but who is restrained by a barrier of some sort, determines not only that the object is of value, but also that the barrier is a barrier.

Psychologically, there is no such thing as a barrier; there is only a barrier for a particular person who is trying to get something that he or she wants (Maslow).

This definition of what constitutes a barrier is really what sets the behavior of a leader apart from the follower, the optimist from the pessimist, the achiever from the failure. Persistence is critical, because as barriers present themselves (real or imagined) one must have the courage and determination to continue the struggle to overcome.

The domination of an individual through the instrumentation of an organization can be stopped, even when the instrument is the home (except, perhaps for young children). The individual needs to understand “that domination is embedded in processes of mutual casualty or in dialectical logics of change that can be reshaped by giving attention to special system pathologies, new codes of social responsibility, new codes of social accounting, and the like” (Morgan, 1986, p. 318).


The Home Organization’s Use of Organizational Theory

The home as an organization is a critical factor to an individual’s quality of life. Furthermore, the home organization plays the central role in deciding the future of society. Organizational factors must be considered in choosing the type of home organization that is structured.

Through the use and comparison of Morgan’s metaphors, parents learn a new way of designing and managing organizational life. The metaphors include several facets that consider organizations from different viewpoints, and when organizational theory and business strategies are applied to home management, a superior process for the development of the home organization occurs.


Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4 (No.1, Pt. 2).

Baumrind, D. (1991b). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.

Baumrind, D. (1991a). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. Lerner, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746–758). New York: Garland.

Baumrind, D. (1983). Rejoinder to Lewis’s reinterpretation of parental firm control effects: Are authoritative families really harmonious? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 132–142.

Bion, W. R. (1959). Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books.

Briggs, D. C. (1975). Your child’s self-esteem. New York: Dolphin Books.

Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271–282.

Burr, W. R., Yorgason, B. G., & Baker, T. R. (1982). Marriage and family stewardships. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft.

Covey, S. R. (1997). The seven habits of highly effective families. New York: Golden Books.

Dobson, J. C. (1992). Dare to discipline. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.

Fuligni, A. J., & Eccles, J. S. (1993). Perceived parent-child relationships and early adolescents’ orientation toward peers. Developmental Psychology, 29, 622–632.

Gareth Morgan’s Home Page. (2001). Available online at:

Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family,61, 574–587.

Harding, C. (2000). Understanding organizations (4th ed.) . New York: Penguin.

Harley, W. F. (1994). His needs her needs. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Hohman, L. B. (1941). As the twig is bent. New York: Macmillan.

Lewis, C. C. (1981). The effects of parental firm control: A reinterpretation of the findings. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 547–563.

Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4): Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.

Managing Change Library. (2001). Retrieved February 20, 2001, from

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Masten, S. A. (1994). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-238.

Mayseless, O., Scharf, M., & Sholt, M. (2003). From authoritative parenting practices to an authoritarian context: Exploring the person–environment fit (Society for Research on Adolescence). Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(4), 427–456.

Morgan, G. (1989). Creative organization theory. New York: Sage Publications.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. New York: Sage Publications.

O’Donnell, D. A., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Muyeed, A. Z. (2002). Multidimensional resilience in urban children exposed to community violence. Child Development, 73, 1265-1282.

Slicker, E. K. (1998). Relationship of parental style to behavioral adjustment in graduating high school seniors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 345–372.

Weiss, L. H., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). The relationship between parenting types and older adolescents’ personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. Child Development, 67, 2101–2114.

Wintre, M. G., & Yaffe, M. (2000). First-year students’ adjustment to university life as a function of relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 9–37.

bottom of page