FRom: STEPHEN KacRoyp (THE ORGANIZATION OF Business’ (2ce02) One size does not fit all Against the background of widespread organizational change, in which there is a great deal of variation in organizational forms, i is not helpful to think of the main task of organization studies as being to identify the one new and distinctive organizational type that fits most observable examples. Yet this is precisely what many writers on organizations today conceive as their task. They wish to assume the mantle of Max Weber, and identify the new dominant organizational form. In the 1970s, with the beginnings of these processes, it was plausible to think that what was happening was the reorganization of bureaucratic types of organization towards something more flexible and adaptable (Kanter 1983, 1989). Today, itis widely realized that something more fundamental is occur ring, but there is still a tendency to think in terms of the new organization being an inversion of the traditional bureaucracy. The idea that underlies this thinking is often nothing more sophisticated than the notion that—since bureaucracy is bad—the new organization must simply negate the features of bureaucracy. This idea gives the impression that all a management needs to do is to make sure to act against the bureaucracy and all will be well. This sort of, account of the new organization is given in Table 7.1 There is no reason to think that this bundle of attributes isa viable model for an organization. The extent to which real organizations share all the attributes listed in Table 7.1 has not been established and, considered in prin ciple, the number displaying all of them is likely to be low. Research shows there are wide variations in organizational structure, even within the same general industrial sector. There is nothing specified here about how these features vary in their incidence, yet clearly the extent to which some organiza tions exhibit these attributes is negligible. For example, the idea that the high- i surveillance firm allows ‘spontaneity’ or genuinely empowers employees is, clearly wrong. More generally, ists of this sort suggest nothing at all bout the relative importance of the attributes, and itis difficult to say which, if any, are essential, and which may be most clearly related to the causes of change. For these reasons, the listing in Table 7.1 is of value as a general statement of170 7: NEW CORPORATE FORMS AND THE NETWORK Table 7.1 The new organization as inversion of the qualities of bureaucracy (Old (Bureaucracy) [New {Post-Bureaucracy) stability disorganization rationality chatisma, values planning spontaneity control ‘empowerment ‘command participation centralization decentralization/disaggregation formalinflexible informal/fexible large downsized bierarchical delayered individual jobs team work ‘ape rom Thompuan and Mcagh GOON, tendencies. At best we can see that many contemporary organizations do have some of these attributes. 7.3 The post-bureaucracy The work of Heckscher and Donnellon (1994), on the post-bureaucracy argues that the new organizational form, the ‘post-bureaucratic’ organization is emerging, rather than already here. These writers claim that organizations of this pattern will eventually be widespread if not universal, However, they recognize that there is a problem with defining the new organization as the ‘opposite or negation of the most authofitative historical model. They can see that more must be said about the positive features of the new organization, and the reasons why it is developing. To this end, Heckscher and Donnellon present a number of arguments that are subtle but, in the end, unsatisfactory. For example, to explain why the post-bureaucracy may be difficult to describe exactly at the moment they argue that: ‘The discussion of the post- bureaucratic organization is complicated by the fact that it does not exist there is no concrete example that truly exemplifies the type . .. The notion of a post-bureaucratic type is drawn from a set of (largely partial and short- lived) examples that seem deliberately to violate bureaucratic principles (1994: 17). By arguing that the new organization is not yet an accomplished fact Heck- scher and Donnellon avoid the problem of recognizing the wide variation in the form of organizations today. Because it is not yet quite apparent, both what is central to it and causing it are also not yet cleat. They recognize, quite correctly, that there are we change its fundamental chi critics of the ‘new organiz Heckscher and Donnelle bureaucratic organization : has some novel basic chara organizational type influet participants—rather than Such practices are preferal suggest that, in the new ¢ mission, the sharing of ir decision-making, solidari allegedly flow in many dire ing to Heckscher and Do ‘would be ‘the interactive © involve more intense intera insttutionalized dialogue. It is difficult to see w authority. There has always thought of as describing a BOX 7.1 Innovation throt Capacity to transform social allocative’, which facta c products, and ‘authoritative’ saty nor sufficient to have f revealed that only about sic iment the innovation within th feel constrained to consult an agencies Even those who had direct with those over whom they hi ‘of an “education strategy’ int two other arguments: that th ation, ofthat followers can r data suggest a greater incide ‘The narratives are replete which the focal managess 3 transform situations. Many including those related to th project tobe sanctioned by «ities of bureaucracy ew (Post-Bureaueracy) soxganization varisma, values ‘ontaneity rnpowerment teticipation, -centralization/disaggregation formal/Rexible awnsized sayered am work ‘fom Thompson sn Moh 200) -ary organizations do have fon the post-bureaucracy sureaucratie’ organization s claim that organizations C universal. However, they ew organization as the orical model. They can see of the new organization, Heckscher and Donnellon in the end, unsatisfactory. nay be difficult to describe discussion of the post- t that it does not exist . the type... The notion of largely partial and short bureaucratic principles’ 1 accomplished fact Heck: zing the wide variation in yet quite apparent, both lear. They recognize, quite THE POST-SUREAUCRACY 171 correctly, that there are ways of moving away from bureaucracy that do not change its fundamental character. This is a point made to good effect by other critics of the ‘new organization’ (Thompson and McHugh 2001). However, Heckscher and Donnellon pin their hopes for establishing the post bureaucratic organization as something new and different on the claim that it hhas some novel basic characteristics. They claim that, in the post-bureaucratic organizational type, influence replaces power; and hence, the need to persuade participants—rather than direct them—becomes more salient for managers. Such practices are preferable to participants. In addition, these authors also. suggest that, in the new organization, there has to be trust and a sense of mission, the sharing of information relevant to the mission, participative decision-making, solidarity, and identification. Information and ideas allegedly flow in many directions and not mainly from the top down. Accord: ing to Heckscher and Donnellon, a better label for the post-bureaucracy ‘would be ‘the interactive organization’, because such organizations allegedly involve more intense interaction and are not founded on authority as much as institutionalized dialogue. It is difficult to see why dialogue negates or denies the existence of authority. There has always been dialogue in organizations. Influence may be thought of as describing a degree of power. From the view of the organization BOX 7.1 Innovation through dialogue Capacity to transform socal situations is aso a function of resources of two forms: ‘allocative’, which faciitate command over raw materials, production methods and products, ad ‘authoritative’, yelding command over persons, But its neither neces sary nor sufficient to have formal authority, The narratives [studied in this research] ‘revealed that only about six ofthe thirty innovators interviewed were able to imple: ‘ment the innovation within the sphere oftheir wn authority. The remainder seemed to feel constrained to consult and negotiate with some set of peers, bosses and external agencies Even those who had direct authority to command resources consulted or negotiated wth those over whom they had nominal command. This behaviour may have been part ‘of an ‘education strategy’ intended to overcame resistance. It is aso consistent with two other arguments: thatthe managerial ale cn be legitiised only through cooper- ation, or that followers can make a cantnbution to effective leadership. In general our data suggest a greater incidence of co-operation and joint contribution strategies ‘The narratives ae replete with stories ofa great variety of social interactions within ‘which the focal managers and others used their intrinsic and acquited capability to transform situations. Many ees to meetings, regular and regula, formal and informal, including those related to the procedures managers had to follow in order for their project to be sanctioned by others. Coopey eta (1997: 236)