Lecture 2 The ecology of organizational realities

The ecology of organizational realities : 

The ecology of organizational realities 1. Institutionalisation 2. Organizational recipes, identity and hypocrisy 3. Diffusion and translation

Slide2: 

Boy in vintage car in Tivoli believing that he steers it! Source: Bøje Larsen 2002 The ecology of organizational realities

Institutional theory: 

Institutional theory In short, the institutional perspective highlights..non-local, historical, relational and cultural forces as factors shaping organizational realities (Scott, 2007 s. 245)

Institutionalisation: 

Institutionalisation The process by which actions are repeated and given similar meaning by self and others is defined as institutionalization (Scott 2007 p. 260)

Three conceptualisations of institutionalisation: 

Three conceptualisations of institutionalisation Scott, 2007, s. 259

Barker’s study on concertive control in self managing teams: 

Barker’s study on concertive control in self managing teams Edwards Control: 1. Simple – direct authority 2. Technological – for instance an assembly line 3. Bureaucratic – rational-legal rules (Max Webers Iron Cage) 4. Concertive control (=negotiated consensus and value based norms and discourse) Problems: Emerging post-bureaucratic paradigms argue for a demise of bureaucracy Discusses Webers notion of ”the iron cage” Concertive control is considered to be legitimate by participants

Barker’s study on concertive control in self managing teams: 

Phase 1 Abstract value statements are brought into concrete terms Participants agree on their commitment to the teams goals Participants negotiate value consensus A new substantial rationality emerges that fills the void of former managers Normative rules are brought into social action Phase 2 New workers poses an immediate challenge to the powerrelations that the ”older” employees have formed From teamwork values to ”need” to obey Coordinator elected for six months (not only one as in the beginning) Phase 3 Still more rational rules The authority to command obedience rests on the team members themselves Peer management increases the total amount of control Barker’s study on concertive control in self managing teams

Barker’s study on concertive control in self managing teams: 

Conclusions: A concertive system creates its own powerful set of rational rules, which resemble the traditional bureaucracy, but the locus of authority transfers from the hierarchical system to teamvalues, norms and rules The ”iron cage” becomes stronger and the peer pressure and rational rules make control invisible Concertive control does not free workers from Weber’s ”Iron Cage” Barker’s study on concertive control in self managing teams

Environment and cases: 

Environment and cases AVK RUBBER A/S Incresing demands on quality and speed Dameca Contacts in a number hospitals Multicom New kinds of demands on the senior partners

Organisational recipes, identity and hypocrisy: 

Organisational recipes, identity and hypocrisy Solutions to undefined problems

Team building in the Hospice: 

Team building in the Hospice 5 teams that never meet at work and have a day together once a year!!!! How can they ever be teams? Talk about teams instead of acting as teams?

Organisational recipes – a pressure on conformity?: 

Organisational recipes – a pressure on conformity? ”A recipe on how things should be done; A recipe which will often be independent of type of organisation and national framing. Organisations that choose not to apply this sort of recipes, will often be critisized for being non-modern and oldfashioned. This can lead to a loss of legitimacy. Many organisations will be pressed to follow and adopt such institutional recipes, which again will lead to uniformity among the organisations” (Jakobsen & Thorsvik, 2002, s. 211)

Three standard descriptions of organizational problems and solutions: 

Three standard descriptions of organizational problems and solutions Team structure People are not sufficiently in contact therefore they do not act in a sufficiently responsible way, which they should Employee development conversations Employees and their managers do not communicate thoroughly enough, which they should Quality management The organisation is not focused enough on the customer, which it should be Frit efter Røvik, 1998 s. 127

Three reasons that organisations adopt organisational recipes: 

Three reasons that organisations adopt organisational recipes Internally defined problemdefinitions (rationalist, tool perspective) Externally defined problem definitions (symbolic perspective) Problems related to the appropriateness of identity Røvik 1998 kap. 6

Working on organisational identity: 

Working on organisational identity Two basic processes: Imitation and differentiation! Who do you want to be like and who do you want to separate yourself from? The organisation as a super-person (Czarniawska, 1994) But who is the generalized other? The idealised company? Bureaucracy? Røvik argues against a dicotomy between surface and core!

Problemdefinitions by private consultants: 

Problemdefinitions by private consultants Clear advice on behalf of symbolic investigation that appear technical rational and scientific. Looose coupling between given advice and investigation made Røvik, 1998

The hypocrisy model: 

The hypocrisy model ”According to traditional (decision) theory talk, decisions and actions are causally related…Talk decisions and actions aimed in one direction increase the likelihood of the corresponding action. In the model of hypocrisy….the causality is the reverse: Talk or decisions in one direction decrease the likelihood of corresponding actions” (Brunsson, 2003)

Hypocrisy in organisations -talk, decisions and action : 

Hypocrisy in organisations - talk, decisions and action Action: Resistent and slow Talk and decisions: Docile in respons to institutionalised pressure Legal pressure Social engagement pressure Environmental pressure Cultural pressure Trends Niels Brunsson 2003

Diffusion and translation: 

Diffusion and translation The role of materiality in stabilising the social

Popular organisational psychology – implementing the recipe – diffussion model: 

Popular organisational psychology – implementing the recipe – diffussion model Recipe 1 Recipe 2 Recipe 3 Decision No. 2 is beeing implemented Implementation No 2 has been implemented The organisation The effects Source: Larsen, 2001

Contra-picture to popular implementation theory – Translation model : 

Contra-picture to popular implementation theory – Translation model Recipe 1 Recipe 2 Recipe 3 The official decision made by the management The organisation The effects Source: Larsen, 2001 Fades away No. 2 has been implemented Internal pressure External pressure

Clinical descriptions: 

Clinical descriptions Evidence based practice: How to do a broken arm! Cochrane group: How can we make people do what they should? Rolemodel! Teaching! Supervision!

A black box! One actor - many actants in network : 

A black box! One actor - many actants in network The set-up map in the rubber factory

Enrol the other: 

Enrol the other ”You may have written the definitive paper proving that the earth is hollow and that the moon is made of green cheese, but this paper will not become definitive if others do not take it up and use it as a matter of fact later on. You need them to make your paper a decisive one” (1987, s. 104) ”enroll others so that they participate in the construction of the fact. Control their behaviour in order to make their actions pre- dictable”. (ibid s. 108)

Interesting – OPP The rubber factory: 

Interesting – OPP The rubber factory

Boundary objects: 

Boundary objects Objects that order the interaction among social worlds across contexts for instance standards in a zoological museum

Borums organisational change strategies (1995): 

Borums organisational change strategies (1995)