Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Managing Future Organization

Managing Future Organization

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8 |Likes:
Published by samayique
Sebuah jurnal penelitian yang menggambarkan tentang konsep organisasi publik (birokrasi) di masa depan.
Sebuah jurnal penelitian yang menggambarkan tentang konsep organisasi publik (birokrasi) di masa depan.

More info:

Published by: samayique on Dec 06, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/06/2012

pdf

text

original

 
he public organization
of
the future
will
be
more
collaborative,
theboundaries
will
be
moreporous,
and
there
will
be
more
connect-
ingto
the
public
as
well
as
to
other
jurisdictions
andto
theprivate
andnonprofit
sectors.
Ultimately,
the
organization
of
the
future
will
be
primarilyconcerned
with
the
process
of
acting,
and
structures
will be
seenas
interrelated
with
actions
rather
than
as
independent
of
actions.We
are
already
startingto
see
the
emergence
of
theor-ganization
of
thefuture.
Thisemergence
is
spurred
by
recognition
of
thedynamic,
complex,
and
interdepen-
dent
nature
of
theproblems
that
organizationsdeal
with.
Silos
and
stovepipes
are
increasingly
seen
as
caus-
ingmore
harmthan
good.
There
is
a
corresponding
increase
in
scholarship
about
collaboration,
collabora-
tive
governance,inclusive
management,partnerships,
projects,
and
stakeholders
(see,e.g.,
Ansell
and
Gash
2008;
Bryson
2004;Crosby
and
Bryson
2005;
Den-hardtandDenhardt
2000;FeldmanandKhademian
2000,
2007;
Hajerand
Wagenaar
2003;InnesandBooher2003;Milward
and
Provan
2000;O'LearyandBingham2009;
O'Leary,
Gerard,
and
Bingham
2006;
Provan
and
Kenis
2008;Roberts
2004).
The
challenge
for
practitioners
operatinginthefutureand
for
scholars
in
studying
andprovid-ing
ways
for
practitioners
to
operatein thefuture
is
tomovefrom
a
focus
on
staticentitiestoan
understanding
of
the
rela-
tionship
between
dynamicpro-
cesses
and
static entities,from
a
focus
onorganizationto
a
focus
onthe
interaction
between
or-
ganization
and
organizing.This
is
essential
to
effective
collabora-
tion.
Collaboration
as
a process
cannot
befor
its
own
sake,
and
if
it
is
only
a way
to
accomplish
the
present
task,
much
of
the
potential
is
missed.
Collaboration
can
create capacity
for
addressing
not
onlythe
current
problem
but
also
those
that
follow.
New
ways
of
understanding
collabo-
ration
can
help
us
achieve
these
potentials.
The
need
for
collaboration
has
beenestablished.
What
practitioners
and
scholars
both
struggle
with
is
the
abilityto
make
collaborationproductive
(Bardach1998;
Feldman,Khademian,and
Quick
2009;
Moore
1995).
At
every
level,
collaboration
is
oftenmet
with
frustration.
Effortsto
includethepublic,
efforts
to
col-
laborate
across
organizational
and
jurisdictionalunits,and
efforts
to
partnerwith
the
private
ornonprofit
sector
often
take
place
only
as
a
lastresort.Some
refer
tothis
as
"failing
into
collaboration"
(Ansell
and
Gash
2008;
Roberts
2004),
in
part
becausethese
efforts
ap-pear
to
be
so
difficult.
Public
managers
andfrontlinepractitioners
must
dothe
work;scholars
of
organiza-
tion
theoryandpublicmanagementneed
tohelp.
How
canscholars
help?
In
thesecond
half
of
this
essay,
I
introduce
a
theoreticalapproach
that
provides
a
way
of
thinkingabout
the interactions
between
pro-
cess
and
outcome.
This
approach
to
research
has
thepotential
toprovideexplanations
that
cangeneralize
fromonecontext
to
another
without
assuming
that
Thechallengefor
practitioners
operatinginthefutureand
forscholarsin
studying
and
providing
ways
for
practitioners
to
operate
in
thefuture
is
to
move
from
afocus
on
staticentitiesto
an
understanding
of
therelationship
between
dynamic
processes
and
staticentities,
from
a
focus
on
organization
to
a
focus
ontheinteraction
between
organization
and
organizing.
Martha
S.
Feldman
University
of
California,
Irvine
Managing
the
Organization
of
the
Future
the
same
action
will
work
in
differentcontexts(Feldman
and
Orlikowski,forthcoming).
Be-
ing
able
to
replicate
a
successful
outcome
is
complex
because
contexts
change
over
time
and
fromorganizationto
organiza-
tion.
By
explaining
processes
and
theirrelation
to
outcomes,
scholarscan
legitimate
and
cre-
ate
a
space
for
experimentation
that
enablespeopletotailorpracticesfor
specific
contexts.
Take,for
instance,the
way
in
whichorganizations
prepare
tocollaborate
during
crises(Bigley
Managing
the
Organizationof
the
FutureS159
Part
III:
Public
Organizations
of
the
Future
Martha
S.
Feldman
Is
he
Johnson
Chair
for
Civic
overnanceand
Public
anage-meetand
a
professorofplanning,
policy
and design,
political
cience.
managementand
sociology
at
the
University
f
California,Irvine.
he
is a
senioreditor
for
Organlka.
don
Sc•enco
nd
book
review
editorforthe
International
Public
ManagementJomnal.
Her
esearchexaminesorganizationalroutinesand
practicesm
ncluding
manage-
meet
practicesfor
collaborativegovernance
in
ublic
organizations.E-mail:feldmanm@ud.edu
 
and
Roberts2001;
Kristensen,Kyng,
and
Palen
2006).
In
some
or-
ganizations,
this
practice
is
a
vibrant
learning
opportunity;
inothers,it
is
a
rote
operation.
What
do
we
know
aboutwhat
makes
the
dif-
ference?
While
it
is
certainly
important
to
assess
such
preparation
in
terms
of
speed,
the
number
of
mistakes
made,
and
similar
outcome
measures,unlesspeople
in
each
context
use
the
process
as
a
way
to
learn,
doingbetterthe
next
time
is
just
a
matter
of
chance.
In
organization
theoryandpublicmanagement,
an
entity
focus
has
predominated
for
many
years.
Thisfocushasbeen
productive.
We
have
learned
muchabout
the power
of
structures
and
the
impor-
tance
of
the forms
of
organization.
The
insights
of
Taylor
(1911),
Gulickand
Urwick
(1937),Lawrence
and
Lorsch(1967),
Thomp-
son
(1967),
andmany
others
continue
to
be
relevant.Scholars
have
builton
these
insightsto
explore
theinfluence
of
structureson
or-
ganizational
processes.
Studies
of
decision-making
processes
providean
excellentexample.
Organizationalstructures
and
thestructures
of
policy
domains,eminent
scholarshave
argued,
influence
the
nature
of
rationality
in decisionmaking
(Cohen,
March,
and
Olsen
1972;
Lindblom
1959;
March
and
Simon
1958;
Simon1997).
As
with
any
focus,however,
the
focus
onentities
and
structures
is
partial
andlimiting.While
action
and
processes
havebeen
consid-
ered,
theemphasis
on
the
importance
of
structures
has
supported
a
divisionbetweenactions
and
structures
that
is
reflectedin
a
dichotomization
of
processes
and
outcomes.
Studies
often
identify
structures
as
independent
variables
and
processes
as
dependent
vari-
ables.
Studies
of
therelationshipbetweenstructuresand
outcomes
oftenconsider
processes
as,
at best,themysterious
blackbox
that
connectsthe
two.Take,
forinstance,
the
variousbox
and
arrow
figures
that
are so
often
found
in
scholarlyarticles.The
boxes
are
always
labeled,
but
the
arrows
are
often
unadorned,
as
if
they
are
either
unimportant
or
speakforthemselves.We
tend
not
tospendtime theorizing
the
arrows
or
understanding
the
many
different
ways
in
whichentities
canbe
connected,
while
spending
a
great
deal
and
Jackson2007).
Foster
care
is
sometimes
the
appropriate
out-
come
of
family
groupdecision
making,
but
the
inabilityto
value
thedynamicrelationshipbetweenthe
collaborative
actionstaken
and
the
outcomes
achieved
and
theresultingshift
in
focus
fromfamilyand
community
engagementto
reducing
days
infoster
care
made
it
difficult
to
see
thatoutcome
as
appropriate.
There
is
analternative.
Theories
of
practice
allowscholars
andpractitionersto
understand
the
importance
of
actionincreating
and
re-creatingstructures
as
well as
theimportance
of
structures
in
constrainingand
enablingactions.
These
theories,articulatedby
scholars
of
the
socialsciences
andphilosophy
(Bourdieu1977,
1990;
Giddens1976,
1979,1984;
Latour
1986,
2005;
Lave
1988;
Ortner
1984,1989;Schatzki
2001),
providenew
insightinto
the
potential
for
collaborationinorganizations
and
policy
domains.
Theyallow
us
to
rethinkfundamental
conceptssuch
as
agency,
structure,
power,objectivity,
and
subjectivity
in
ways
that
make
it
possible
to
explore
the
processes
of
adjustment
that
produce
stable
patterns.
Thesetheoriesenable
the
researcher
andpractitioner
to
focus
on
the
continuousnature
of
the
dynamics
intrinsic
to organiz-ing,
and
thus
tocreate
new
ways
of
engaging
publicpotential
to
address
publicproblems.Inthis
short
essay,
it
is
only
possible
toprovide
the
briefest
of
intro-ductions
to
practice
theoryand
its
potential
for
understandingthe
role
of
organizingin addressing
public
problems.
1
Inthe
following,
I
provide
a
brief
example
andpointers
to
some
of
the
excellent
re-
searchalready
published
andunder
way.
I
apologizefor
any
research
that
I
have
omitted
fromthislist.My
effort
is
toprovide
pointers
in
a
variety
of
directions
ratherthan
to
beexhaustive.
The
references
listed
willlead
to
many
others.Fromthe
perspective
of
practice
theory,
collaboration
creates
the
community
that
enacts
thetask
as
well
as
the
product
of
the
task
(Feldman
and
Khademian
2008;
Feldman
and
Quick
2009).
This
of
time theorizingand measuringthe
boxes.
This
bifurcatedapproachtostructuresandoutcomes,onthe one
hand,
and
processes
or
actions,onthe
other,
can
resultin
a
belief
that
they
exist
independent
of
one
another.
The
upshot
is
overestimatingthestability
of
structures
and
outcomes
andunderestimating
the
contribution
of
action
or
processes.
[A]
recursive
relationshipmeans
that
community
building
and
task
accomplishment(or
process
andoutcome)
are
not
in
a
trade-
off
relationship.
If
you
sacrifice
one,
you
also
impairtheother.
While
thedivision
of
dependentand
indepen-
dent
variables
may make
research
moretractable,
seeing
theactions
that
people
take
as
beingconstrained
and
enabled
by
structures
but
not
constitutive
of
them
is
problematicfor
understanding
the
nature
of
coordination
across
organizational,jurisdictional,
sectoral,
tem-poral,
andother
"boundaries."
To
illustrate,consider
a
child
welfare
practice
called
familygroupdecisionmaking.
Thefocus
of
thisprac-
tice
is
a
planfor
protectingand
caring
for
an abusedor
neglected
child
that
is
developed
through
a
meeting
of
the
child's
extended
family.The
planoften
reduces
the
number
of
days
in
foster
care.
Research
on
the
implementation
of
thispracticeshowed
that
as
the
reduction
emerged,this
outcome
was
oftenmistakenfor the
goal,
and
specific
instances
of
family
group
decision
making
were
judgedby
whether
they
had
reduced
days
infoster
care
rather
than
how
the
process
hadbeen
usedto
serve
the
interests
of
the child
(Crampton
S160
Public
Administration
Review
*
December
2010
*
Special
Issue
recursive
relationshipmeans
that community
buildingand
task
accomplishment(or
process
andoutcome)
are
not
in
a
trade-off
relation-ship.
If
you
sacrifice
one,you
also
impair
the
other.
This
understanding
of
the relationship
has
been
captured
in the
50/50
rule
used
in
a
Midwesterncity
(Quickand
Feldman
2009).
Accordingtothisrule,
the
success
ofthe
project
is
assessed
equally
onthequality
of
the
process
and
thequality
of
theoutcome.
More-
over,
the
process
is
assessed
by
whether
it
increased
the
capacity
of
the
community
to
solve
futureproblems.
Practicetheories
andthe
recursive
relationshipbetweenactionandstructures
have
been
engaged
by
scholars
inorganization
theory
(Carlile
2002,
2004;
Czarniawska
2004;Feldman
2000,
2004;
Jarzabkowski
2005;Wenger
1998;
Nicolini,Gherardi,and
Yanow
2003;Orlikowski
2000,
2002;
Tsoukas
andChia2002),
planning
(Forester1999;
Healey
1997;
Sch6n
1983;Schweitzer,
Howard,andDoran
2008),
andpublicmanagement
(Bryson,
Crosby,and
Bryson
2009;
Crampton
2001;Czarniawska
2002;
FeldmanandKhademian2001,
2002,
2003,2008;Feldman
and
Quick
2009;
Kenney2007;
Quick
and
Feldman2009;
Sandfort2000,2003,
2010;Thacher
2001,
2009;
Yanow
1996).Thesescholarsshow
us
 
the
role
of
action
in
producing
andreproducingconstructs
that
have
been
seen
as
entities,such
as
community(Quickand
Feldman2009),
knowledge
(Carlile
2002,
2004;Nicolini,Gherardi,and
Yanow
2003;Orlikowski2002),
policy
(Crampton
2001;
Yanow
1996),strategy(Jarzabkowski
2005),
and
technology(Orlikowski
2000).
They
show
us
ways
to
understand
theinterrelated
nature,
for
instance,
of
community,
action,
and
policy(Czarniawska
2004;
Jarzabkowski
2005;
Quickand
Feldman2009;
Yanow
1996),or
of
technologies,learning,andknowing
(Brown
and
Duguid
1991;
Carlile
2002,
2004;Gherardi2006;Kenney2007;
Lave
and
Wenger1991;
Orlikowski
2000,
2002),
that
canhelp
us
enactcollaborative
and
inclusive
organizing.
Many
significant
research
questions
arise
from
a
practice
theory
perspective.
Here,
I
will
justmention
three
broad
areas.
1.
Accountability:
Thefamily
group
decision
making
exampleillustrates
a
familiar
problem-accounting
for
outcomes
aloneoftendistortswhat
we
want
to
achieve.
How
can
we
develop
ways
of
accounting
not
onlyfor
what
was
accomplished,
but
also
forthe
attention
tothe
future
consequences
of
how
it
was
accomplished?
2.
Empowerment:
Effective
collaborationsoftendepend
oncommunityand/or
employee
empowerment.
Yet
by
theorizing
powerasymmetries
as
characteristics
of
people
and
groupsor
as
associated
with
stable
structures
of
society
ratherthan
as
the
consequences
of
our
actions,
we
tend
to
theorize
empowerment
as
the
giving
away
of
powerand
limit
thelikelihood
of
people
taking
these
actions.
Focus-
ing
on
the
dynamics
of
power
would
enablescholars
andpractitionersto
reconceptualize
empowerment
as
productive
rather
than
redistributive,
suggestingnewpossibilities
for
action.
3.
Leadership:
Viewed
through
a
practicetheory
lens,leader-
ship
is
defined
as
the
practices
that
enable
communities
to
move
forwardrather
than
as
a
feature
of
an
individual(Quick
2010).
How
communities
create,modify,
and
en-
gage
such
practices
is
a significant
field
of
future
research.
Practice
theory
provides
a
different
way
of
doing
research
that
extends
thepotential
of
current
research
agendas.
Current
research
is
often
conducted
in
ways
that
make
it
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
understand
the dynamicnature
of
publicproblemsandthe
potential
for
public
administration
toaddress
them.
"This
s
an unnecessary
limitation
on
our
re-
Practice
the
search.
While
research
that
establishes
the cur-
rent
state
of
affairs
is
useful,
that
research
also
different
way
o
needstobe
embedded
in
an
understanding
of
that
extends
the
dynamicinteractions
between
outcomes
current
rese
and
the
processes
that
produce
and
reproducethem.
Practice
theory
is
also
important
for
practitioners,
for
whom
thisperspective
illuminatestheir
potential
forproductivity
in
acollaborative
world.
Weneedto
train
students,
whether
they
want
to
become
practitionersor
scholars,tobecapable
of
analyzing
thedynamic
nature
of
publicproblems
andunderstand-
ingthepotential
we
all
have
foraddressing
them.
Practice
theory
is
an
excellent
starting
point
forachievingthese
understandings.
Acknowledgments
I
am
grateful
forthe
helpful
comments
of
Natalie
Baker,
David
Crampton,
Rosemary
O'Leary,
Katie
Pine,Kathy
Quick,
JodiSand-fort,andDavid
Van
Slyke.
References
Ansell,
Chris,
and
AllisonGash.2008.CollaborativeGovernancein Theory
and
Practice.
Journal
of
PublicAdministration
Research
and
Theory
18(4):
543-71.
Bardach,
Eugene.
1998.
Getting
Agencies
toWorkTogether:The
Practice
and
7Teory
of
Managerial
Craftsmanship.
Washington,
DC:
Brookings
Institution
Press.Bigley,
Gregory
A.,
and
Karlene
H.
Roberts.2001.The
Incident
Command
System:
High-ReliabilityOrganizing
for
Complex
and
Volatile
Task
Environments.
Academy
ofManagementJournal
4
(6):
1282-99.
Bourdieu,
Pierre.1977.
Outline
of
a
Theory
of
Practice.
Trans.
RichardNice.
Cam-
bridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
.
1990.
The
Logic
of
Practice.
Trans.RichardNice.Stanford,
CA.
StanfordUniversity
Press.
Brown,
John
S.,
and
Paul
Duguid.
1991.
OrganizationalLearning
and
Communi-
ties-of-Practice:Toward
a
Unified
View
of
Working,Learning
and Innovation.
Organization
Science
2(1):
40-57.
Bryson,
JohnM.2004.
What
to
Do
When
Stakeholders
Matter.
Public
MaanagementReview
6(1):
21-53.
Bryson,
John
M.,
Barbara
C.
Crosby,
andJohn
K.
Bryson.2009.
Understanding
Strategic
Planningandthe
Formulation
andImplementation
of
StrategicPlans
as
a
Way
of
Knowing:
The
Contributions
of
Actor-NetworkTheory.
Interna-
tional
PublicManagement
Journal
12(2):
172-207.
Carlile,Paul
R.
2002.
A
Pragmatic
View
of
Knowledge
and
Boundaries:
BoundaryObjects
in
New
Product
Development.
Organization
Science
13(4):
442-55.
-.
2004.
Transferring,Translating,
and
Transforming:AnIntegrativeFrame-workforManaging
Knowledgeacross
Boundaries.
Organization
Science
15(5):
555-68.
Cohen,
Michael
D.,
James
G.
March,andJohan
P.
Olsen.
1972.AGarbage
Can
Model
of
OrganizationalChoice.
Administrative
Science
Quarterly
17(1):
1-25.Crampton,
David.2001.Making
Sense
of
FosterCare:AnEvaluation
of
Family
Group
DecisionMakingin
Kent
County,
Michigan.
PhD
diss.,
University
of
Michigan.
Crampton,
David,andWendy
Lewis
Jackson.2007.
Family
Group
DecisionMak-ingand
Disproportionality
inFoster
Care:
A CaseStudy.
Child
Wlfare
86(3):
51-70.
Crosby,Barbara
C.,
and
JohnM.
Bryson.
2005.
Leadership
or
the
CommonGood-
Tackling
Public
Problems
in
a
Shared-PowerWorld
SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Czarniawska,Barbara.
2002.
A
Tale
of
Three
Cities,or theGlocalization
of
City
Man-
agement.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press.
-.
2004.
On
Time,
Space
and Action
Nets.
ory
provides
a
f
doing
research
fhe
potential
of
archagendas.
Organization
11(6):
777-95.
Denhardt,
Robert
B.,
andJanetVinzant
Denhardt.
2000.
TheNewPublic
Service:
ServingRather
than
Steer-
ing.
PublicAdministration
Review
60(6):
549-59.
Feldman,
Martha
S.
2004.
Resources
in
EmergingStructures
and
Processes
of
Change.
Organization
Science
15(3):
295-309.
Feldman,
Martha
S.,
and
AnneM. Khademian.
2000.
Managing
for
Inclusion:Balancing
Control
andParticipation.
International
ubfic
ManagementJournal
3(2):
149-67.
-.
2001.
Principlesfor
Public
Management
Practice:
From
Dichotomiesto
Interdependence.
Governance
14(3):
339-62.
Managing
the
Organizationof
the
Future
5161

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->