FF3

Efter bureaukratiet…
 Agenda
• Praktiske oplysninger
– Lokale til FF resten af semester: SP202
– Information om opgaver & eksamen
• Gruppediskussion af case
(Pause)
• Organisationer som organismer
(Pause)
• Kommunikation i organiske organisationer
• Næste uges holdundervisning…
 Opgaver Eksamen

• Gruppe (ca 3 personer) • Individuel

• 5-7 ns • 10 ns
 Gruppediskussion (5 min)
Lars Kolind

•Kolinds hovedpointer?
•Relation til kursets emner/tekster?
 Råd fra Kolind...
• Pil strukturen ud af organisationen
–Formindsk antallet af managere
–Skab en management struktur bestående af
medarbejdere, ikke hierarkier med faste ledere.
–Opbyg evt. en kultur med mentorer.
• Åbn op for uformel kommunikation
–“Virksomheden bør tage afstand fra alt der har
med formel kommunikation at gøre”
– ”Innovationer sker, når folk mødes”
– ”skabe et miljø, der inviterer til interaktion i de
fælles fysiske rammer” - Åbne kontorlandskaber
 Gruppediskussion (5 min)
• Lars Kolind: ‘There’s absolutely no doubt that oral
communication is 10 times more powerful, more
creative, quicker, and nicer’ than writing memos” (p25).

• Enig eller ej? Hvorfor/hvorfor ikke?

• Fordele/ulemper ved mundtlig/skriftlig kommunikation?
 Contradiction?
• ‘every piece of information, with very few
exceptions, is available to everybody’, Mr.
Kolind says. ‘Anyone can click on our
strategic plan [in the computer] and see
what we intend to do to beat Siemens’.”
(LaBarre, 1994:24)
 Livet i et glashus…

Christa Breum Amhøj, Medarbejderens synliggørelse i den transparente organisation

 According to Douglas McGregor …
Proponents of ‘Theory X’
typically assume that:
1. Work is inherently
distasteful to most people,
and they’ll avoid it like the
plague if they can
2. Most workers are
unambitious, dislike
responsibility, and prefer to
be directed
3. Most people are neither
creative nor intelligent
4. Workers need external
motivation – be that the
whip or more pay
5. Most people must be closely
controlled and often coerced
to achieve organizational
objectives
Proponents of ‘Theory Y’
typically assume that:
1. To most/many people, work is
as natural as play - if the
conditions are favorable
2. Most workers are ambitious,
want responsibility, and prefer
to make their own decisions
3. Creativity and intelligence is
spread throughout
organizations
4. Many workers are motivated
by internal forces - e.g. a need
for self-actualization
5. People can be self-directed
and creative at work if properly
motivated
 What is being managed?
• Classical management was only concerned with
behavior. What workers actually thought and felt was
their own business, as long as they behaved as
management required them to.
• Contemporary gurus argue that ”Effective leaders treat
the business problems of today as problems that
affect each worker´s whole being – their minds,
bodies, hearts, and spirits” (Eisenberg & Goodall,
p256.)
Pause
Organisationer som organismer

”The major can

influence the battle to
the extent that his head
is able to direct the
machinegunner's hand”
(Herbert Simon)
 Arter og omgivelserne
• Vi finder forskellige arter af organisationen i
forskellige miljøer
• Visse arter er bedre tilpasset de specifikke
miljøforhold end andre
• Som miljøer ændres, forsvinder gamle arter
og nye arter dukker
• Inden for forskellige arter af organisationen,
finder vi helt forskellige
kommunikationmønstre
 Arter og omgivelser

”It is possible to identify different species of organization in

different kinds of environments” (Morgan, p33).

Matrix Project-based
organizations organizations
Bureaucracies

Adhocracies
Visse arter er bedre tilpasset de specifikke
miljøforhold end andre

Icebear parachutes into desert

 Arter og omgivelser…

• Claim 1: “Mechanistic forms of organization,

characterized by hierarchical control, are more suited to
stable environments” (Courtright et al)

• Claim 2: “Organic organizational forms, characterized by

dispersed control, are more suited to unstable
conditions”

• Hvorfor? Er det sandt?

 Hvorfor bureaukratier ikke
fungerer i turbulente miljøer ...

Output: Too little, too late.

Information processing:
Time-consuming, prone to
distortion, delays

Betts, R.K. (1981). Surprise Despite Warning:

Why Sudden Attacks Succeed. Political Science Input: Unforseen/surprising event
Quarterly, Vol. 95, No. 4., pp. 551-572 .
• Er ”organiske” organisationer
nødvendigvis bedre egnet til hurtigt
skiftende miljøer?
• Hvorfor/hvorfor ikke?
Carzo, R. & Yanouzas, J.N. (1969) Effects of flat
and tall organization structure Administrative
Science Quarterly, 14(2), pp. 178-191.
Fayol on ”unity of command”
Omgivelserne ændrer sig,
gamle arter forsvinder…
Nye arter opstår…
• Forsvinder gamle arter som bureaukratiet
helt, eller er de stadigvæk derud?
• Hvordan adskiller de nye arter sig fra de
gamle?
• Er ”ny(ere)” ensbetydende med ”bedre”?
• Hvad er ligheder og forskelle mht
kommunikation mønstre?
 Der findes stadig bureaukratier, og fortalere
for bureakrati - også på CBS…

Du Gay, P. (1994) Making up managers: Bureaucracy, Enterprise, and

the Liberal Art of Separation. The British Journal of Sociology, 45(4), pp. 655-674
 Hvordan adskiller de nye arter
sig fra de gamle?
Mechanistic (Bureaucratic)
Prototype: bureaucracy
Fixed rules
Hierarchy
Centralization of decision-making
Managers issue orders, employees
execute them
Specialization
Standardization
Works well in stable environments
Long chains of communication
Command style of communication
Organic (project, matrix)
Prototypes: matrix- & project
Flexible values (”værdibaseret
ledelse”
Flat (fire middle-managers)
Decentralization
Employees are participants,
managers merely ”coaches”
”Multijobs”
Innovation
Best suited to turbulent environents
Short chains
Consultative style of communication
Evolution = fremskridt?

http://www.imaginiz.com/provocative/meta
phors/models.html
Organisationer ≠ organismer…
Pause
Inden for forskellige arter af organisationen,
finder vi helt forskellige kommunikations-
mønstre…
 Mechanistic versus Organic organizations

• Distinction goes (at least) back to Burns and Stalker (1961)

• ”The central premise of those authors is that as rates of
environmental change vary, organizations need different
systems of control, information conveyance, and authorization”
(p773)
 Two central claims
• Claim 1: “Mechanistic forms of organization,
characterized by hierarchical control, are
more suited to stable environments”
• Claim 2: “Organic organizational forms,
characterized by dispersed control, are more
suited to unstable conditions”
• Why? Are these claims true, to begin
with?
 Kommunikationsmønstre i
mekanistiske organisationer
1. Command style:
• Instructions, orders
• Communication one-way, top-down
2. High level of conflict:
• top management ”a court of appeal where
conflicting interests get resolved” (p774).

Full metal jacket

 Kommunikationsmønstre i
organiske organisationer
1. Consultative approach:
• Absence of directs commands.
• All knowledgeable contributors participate in decision
making;
• managers ”offer options, listen, paraphrase, question,
advise”.
2. Discussion and negotiation
 Andre aspekter af
kommunikation som påvirkes?
• Kort svar: ALT.
• cf implikationer af skift fra specialister i
siloer til ”multijobs” i projektbaserede
organisationer…
Problematic conception of
”communication”?
 Basic unit of analysis
• Not what people do individually
• Rather, focus on relations
• ”interacts” ... i.e. ”a sequence of two contiguous
behaviors” (p777)
• With each interact, relational message patterns
emerge
Advantages of interactional data (p776-777)

• Allows precise tracking of actual manager-

employee communication
• Avoid relying on a single actor’s worldview
• Allows direct observation of organizational
structuring
 Coding scheme (p778)
• ”One-up”: messages that attempt to define
or control a situation, e.g. orders and
instructions
• ”One-down”: requests and acceptances of
another’s definition of a situation
• ”One-across”: nondemanding, nonaccepting,
leveling moves, e.g. elaborations and
extensions of a previous message
Hypotheses
 Paradoxes of implementing participatory
decision making
Paradoxes of structure ”Be spontaneous, creative,
and assertive in the way
we planned!
Paradoxes of agency ”Do things our way but still
in a way that is distinctively
your own!”
Paradoxes of identity ”Be self-managing to reach
organizational goals!”
Paradoxes of power ”Be independent, just as I
have commanded you!”

Stohl, C. & Cheney, G. (2001) “Participatory processes, paradoxical practices. Communication and the
Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy”. Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3, February
2001 349-407.
Reading for next week
James Barker on Concertive
Control in Self-Managing
Teams
 Is Barker’s text about
communication?
“Around March-April 1991, I began to notice that the way
the team members talked, both informally and at team
meetings, had changed. They did not talk so much about
the importance of their teamwork values as they did about
the need to ‘obey’ the team’s work norms. Team meetings
began to have a confrontational tone, and the new
workers’ attitudes and performance became open topics
for team discussion. When the longer-tenured team
members saw someone not acting in accordance with their
norms, such as not being willing to do whatever it took for
the team to be successful, they said something about it.”
(Barker, p425).
• My cubicle
• Ineffectual middle management suck ups
• Against positive thinking