Managing managerialism in management

and management studies

Christian T. Lystbæk

Aarhus University

Birk Centerpark, 15

DK-7400 Herning

christianl@hih.au.dk

Keywords: Managerialism, rigor, relevance, non-reductionism, Ralph Stacey

1
Introduction

The paper addresses the dominance of an instrumental or “managerialist” conception of

rationality within management. Many critics have made clear that this conception of

rationality is reductionist, but the critique often dismisses rationality altogether as the failed

project of the Enlightenment. My paper will argue that rationality should be seriously engaged

with as a concept, but that such a serious engagement will illuminate rationality as a multi-

faceted concept. This conception allows us to engage with rationality in a theoretical fruitful

and ethically engaged manner that challenges us to see rationality as a form of activity or

labor.

Painting waves with the broad brush

Management and managers are important in today´s world because what they do has impact

on evereone´s lives. As Peter Drucker has famously stated:

“The emergence of management in this [the 20th] century may have been a pivotal

event in history. It signaled a major transformation of society into a pluralist

society of institutions, of which managements are the effective organs.” (Drucker,

1973:1)

Thus, according to Drucker, the 20th century witnessed a management boom that changed

society permanently. Management has become a familiar and legitimate social practice, a

position of status supported by institutional and social norms that gave managers the right to

hire, fire, give orders, control and evaluate the efficiency and productivity of the performance

of others in the interest of profit or providing service for the common good.

2
Along with the management boom came the professionalization of management and the

growth of management and organization studies. The first MBA was offered by Harvard

Business School in 1910. In 1923, the American Management Association was established,

followed by the British Institute of Management in 1947. The second part of the 20th century

saw the more widespread emergence of Business Schools offering courses leading to

certificates, diplomas, masters and ph.D.s. Hence, today, studies of management are seen as

vital to the development of “professional” managers.

But (and here comes the point), there is general consensus that an instrumental conception of

rationality dominates management studies, that is, a conception that pinpoints rational

planning, prediction and control in management. For example, Cassell & Lee (2011) states, in

their introduction to a recent anthology on Challenges and Controversies in Management

Research, that “a seemingly enduring feature of contemporary management research is the

dominance of an Anglo-American positivist tradition.” (Cassell & Lee, 2011:2). Similarly,

Ann Cunliffe states that management studies (in research and study programs) have been

dominated by rational models, which have defined the characteristics of managerial functions,

activities, roles and competencies in rationalistic terms. She describe this as the ideology of

Managerialism, that is “a kind of systemic logic, […] a way of doing and being in

organizations which has the ultimate goal of enhancing efficiency through control.” (Cunliffe,

2009:17)

This logic or ideology can be identified in the vast proportion of prescriptive models of

managerial work and activities, according to which rational planning, prediction and control is

3
the basis of managerial power and legitimacy. There is general agreement that it dominates

management textbooks and curricula. Gill & Johnson (2010:4) states that this “orthodoxy

within management research […] is maintained by very powerful institutional pressures.”

These institutional pressures come from management academics, management consultants

and management practitioners alike. They, or rather we, all want to be, or at least appear to be,

rational and right: We want to be in the lead of things in the sense of having the right answers

to management questions and the right solutions to management problems.

Throughout the history of management studies, though, and especially in the second part of

the 20th century, a series of management studies have criticized the dominant view of

management. Studies of what managers actually do – e.g. from Carlson´s (1951) study of

Swedish executives, through Stewart´s (1967) study of UK managers, and to Mintzberg´s

(1973) study of US CEOs – have contradicted the rationalistic view of management,

suggesting instead that managerial work is subject to uncertainty, and that management

activities are fragmented and involve making choices within constraints and conflicting

values.

In the following, I will describe these two “movements”, managerialism and its critics, as two

waves in management studies. I will describe managerialism as “the first wave” of

management studies and the critique as “the second wave”, since it grew out and continues to

grow out of a critique of managerialism and its instrumental conception of rationality. But it

should be noticed that in this strange sea, the first wave continues to roll even as the second

wave builds up.

4
I will go on to propose that the (managerialistic) first wave of management studies is good for

addressing the Question of Rigor in management, that is, the question: How to do things

right? But it seems to ignore the Question of Relevance in management, that is, the question:

How to do the right things? Correspondingly, the second (critical) wave of management

studies is good for addressing the Question of relevance that it inherited from the first wave,

but it replaces the Question of Relevance with the Question of Rigor, thus leaving or

neglecting this problem.

This distinction between doing things right and doing the right things, that is, between rigor

and relevance, is made by Bennis and Nanus to distinguish between managers and leaders:

"Managers are people who do things right, and leaders are people who do the right things."

(Benni & Nanus, 1985:7) However, we should not find it appropriate to differentiate between

two distinct activities in this way. It does not make sense to aspire to do things right with no

regard to the content of whatever it is one is doing (whether it is the right things), nor does not

make sense to aspire to do the right things right with no regard to the way one is doing this

(whether one is doing things right). Doing things right and doing the right things are, rather,

inter-related questions of mutual importance. It does not make sense to prefer one from the

other, that is, to do the right things, but not doing them right, or to do things right, but not the

right things. This dichotomy might be appealing (for polemic purposes), but it is false.

As such, this paper will point toward a Third Wave of management studies, addressing the

question (or quest) whether the fundamental tension between Rigor and Relevance can ever

be resolved? And if it cannot be resolved, how can it best be approached? The answers to

these questions are central to management studies, both academic and practical.

5
But let me begin with a few more words on these “waves” in management studies.

The first wave in management studies: Managerialism – old and new (NPM)

The first wave of management studies is dominated by managerialism, that is, the idea (or

ideology) that management is about enhancing efficiency through control, thus privileging the

logic of technical rationality and systematic rigor in terms of rational planning, prediction and

control. Today, many people believe that this conception of management is a precondition for

well-functioning and progress in organizations as well as in society in general. Management

protects us from chaos and inefficiency by guaranteeing that organizations, people and

machines do what should be doing.

This ideology of managerialism is in itself predicted on a very large story about organizational

and social progress. Management studies (in their modern form – the ancient and medieval

“roots” is another story) began with the work of early organizational and administrative

theories, both academic and practitioners, who were concerned about bringing the logic of

technical rationality and systematic rigor in terms of rational planning, prediction and control

into management. This concern has been carried on as the main trend within management

studies throughout the 20th and into the 21st century, but with a steady expansion in the scope

of what is to be managed, organized and controlled.

In the first part of the last century, management was thought to be essentially the function of

controlling the performance of tasks in order to produce the goods and services of the

organization. Thus, management was conceived as the efficient organization of the work

tasks. But, in the following decades, a series of management studies showed (e.g. the famous

6
Hawthorne Studies) that performance is dependent upon not only the organization of the work

tasks but also the roles and relationships, including the social and psychological work

environment. Thus, business psychology was born as a management discipline stating that

management is not only a technical function of controlling tasks, but a social and

psychological function of controlling roles and relationships as well. Then, in the following

decades, further management studies pinpointed the importance of continued learning and

development for task performance, and business Human Resource Management (HRM) and

Organizational Development (OD) were born as management functions and academic

disciplines. Then, management studies pinpointed the importance of organizational culture,

and culture management or “organizational anthropology” was born as a function and

academic discipline. Then, management studies pinpointed the importance of organizational

communication, and, the history repeats itself, this became a management function and

academic discipline. In the 1990, management studies pinpointed the importance of

organizational values, missions and visions, and this (according to the measurement of

management tools and trends made by Bain & Company) has become a main management

function and field of knowledge.

Insert figure 1.

The 20th century, then, witnessed a steady expansion in the scope of management issues, that

is, of what is to be managed, organized and controlled in order to enhancing efficiency in

organizations – from control of tasks and production processes through relationships and

7
learning processes, and cultural and communication processes to, finally but probably not

lastly, values and basic beliefs.

Because this orthodoxy of management control is so dominant and strong, we often take it for

granted as self-evidently right. When we talk about corporate communication, organizational

learning, human capital, etc. we often take it for granted that communication, learning,

knowledge, innovation, etc. can and should be managed in the sense of being object of

rational planning, prediction and control. This assumption can be identified in the vast

proportion of prescriptive models of managerial work and activities, according to which

rational planning, prediction and control is the basis of managerial power and legitimacy.

Debate in the field, then, is predominantly debate within this meta-theoretical assumption,

namely debate over the means suggested to achieve control. Following Hoyle & Wallace

(2005:69f), we can identify two “ideal types” of this paradigm depending upon whether the

control mechanism is suggested to be direct or indirect. They label the two ideal types “neo-

Taylorism” and “culture management”, respectively.

Insert table 1.

Neo-Taylorism opts for channeling agency and delimiting its boundaries through overt, direct

control. It is unsubtle, with a top-down orientation. Power is concentrated in the hands of

policy-makers and organizational leaders. It operates through detailed specification of who is

8
to do what to achieve specified outcomes. The aim is minimally to secure behavioral

compliance.

Culture management is most subtle, opting for indirect control through a mix of overt and

covert mechanisms. These are designed to align the beliefs and values of teachers with those

of their leaders and managers and to bring them, in turn, into line with those of policy-makers.

The aim here is the most ambitious. They will be motivated voluntarily to channel their

agency among the required lines with full commitment to the spirit of the enterprise. When

this is couched in a “humanistic” language stressing the creation and control of a learning

organization, underpinned by a strong organizational culture which reflects shared values and

is expressed through a clear vision, encapsulated in a distinctive mission, and internalized

through a HRM staff development program this sounds innocuous. But when one remembers

that we are talking about human beings the flavor changes. To talk of controlling not only

tasks and roles, but relationships, learning, development, communication, knowledge,

innovation, etc. is to talk of corporations controlling the very identities and mental functioning

of human beings. At this point, there is nothing left of the worker as a human being that falls

outside the ambit of organizational control.

Thus, each ideal type reflects a different combination of forms and mechanisms of control:

direct and indirect, centralized and decentralized, explicit and subliminal.

Underpinning the hyperactivity of managerialism, the constant creation of new tools for

organizing work, is an ideology, which hold that not only can all aspects of organizational life

be controlled, but that they should be controlled. This ideology of managerialism demands

9
that a specific problem is dealt with by means of strategic planning and application of a

distinct body of knowledge and techniques that has universal application.

According to several scholars, e.g. before mentioned Ann Cunliffe (2009), Hoyle & Wallace

(2005), this managerialistic ideology seem to have taken on a life of its own in government

services, education, health care, and other public sector organizations throughout Europe,

Australia and North America. New managerialism, or New Public Management (NPM) as it is

often called, is associated with importing practices commonplace in the private sector into the

public sector, particularly the imposition of a powerful management body with a market

orientation and business practice that overrides professional skills and knowledge as a means

of maximizing organizational performance through direct and indirect control.

The current orthodoxy in leadership and management studies, particularly as expressed in

texts on New Public Management can be condensed something like: Public service

improvement is the outcome of the capacity of a transformational leader driven by moral

purpose to harness distributed leadership in creating a learning organization, underpinned by

a strong organizational culture which reflects shared values and is expressed through a clear

vision, encapsulated in a distinctive mission, and internalized through a HRM staff

development program by a collegial staff who contribute to a corporate development plan

which gives unified direction to their synergistic and continuous improvement efforts.

This summary constitutes the touchstone of NPM, yielding key concepts such as

transformational leadership, organizational culture, learning organization and clear vision.

10
There is a strong body of work within this tradition and I in no way deny its value. But many

textbooks are over-simplifying the issues they address. And even when contributors are well

aware of the complexities of improvement, some readers, including teachers of leadership and

management, bring an oversimplification to their reading.

Today, alongside the gains of rational planning and control, there is plenty evidence of

problems. Here is just one indicative example: Successive Danish Governments have

generated an extensive series of policies aimed at transforming Danish public service (health

care, school education) as part of a wider strategy to reform or to “modernize” all the public

sector, but this have not led to anticipated levels of improvement and success. On the contrary,

an unintended negative consequence and dysfunction of the managerialistic faith in

management has been to overload chronically the managers and front-line practitioners

charged with responsibility for implementing the multiplicity of innovations entailed in these

policies.

In general, a series of management studies have criticized the widespread ideology of

managerialism suggesting, with a phrase of Henry Mintzberg and colleagues, that

management is not what you, or we, often think (Mintzberg et al. eds. 2010). This critique

states that managerialism put to much emphasis on the Question of Rigor, but seems to

marginalize the Question of Relevance in the sense that it focuses on strategic planning and

the monitoring and controlling of the plans whereas it does not give much notice to the ways

the plans relates to what people in the organization are actually doing nor does it give notice

to the conflicts and complexities that managers and experts often experience.

11
The second wave in management studies: Complexity

The First Wave began to roll into shallow academic waters in the 1960´s, with the studies of

Sune Carlson, Henry Mintzberg and others. These studies have contradicted the rationalistic

view of management, suggesting instead that managerial work is subject to uncertainty and

ambiguity.

For example, already Carlson, in 1951, suggested that management should not be considered

applied science, but rather a practical art:

“The work of managing directors in large firms is so varied and so hard to grasp.

It is also different from many other kinds of intellectual work in that it is more a

practical art than an applied science.”

(Carlson, 1951:109)

Despite 100 years of management theories and techniques, managing is still a difficult and

fraught process. Why is managing so difficult? The quick and easy answer is, because

managers are like the rest of us – human and fallible. The more complex and difficult answer

is, because people are not the coherent and malleable cluster of well-defined characteristics,

fixed intentions and predictable actions that conventional management theories assume.

To exemplify the point about the poor correspondence between management theory and prac-

tice, let me quote a frustrated manager from the book Real Managers:

“We all went through the B-schools when we were young and the professors had all the

answers on the blackboards, computer printouts, and reading assignments. Everything

was so clean and precise. The problems in the accounting and quantitative courses

12
 always had logical answers. Even the principles of management and policy courses had

structure and form, citing the five functions a manager performs or the three steps of

strategic planning. The same is true of the management development programs I have

attended over the years. The trainer has all the answers to my problems – one, two,

three. But I’m here to tell you it really isn’t like that. My day consists of running from

one meeting to the next, fielding questions from my internal staff and outsiders, trying

to respond to telephone messages, trying to smooth over an argument between a

couple of people, and keeping my ever higher in-basket from toppling down on top of

me. In fact, I feel guilty that I’m not doing the things that the management educators,

trainers, and the things I read say I should be doing. When I come out of one of these

sessions, or after reading the latest management treatise, I’m eager to do it. Then the

first phone call from an irate customer, or a new project with a rush deadline, falls on

me, and I’m back in the same old rut.

(Luthans et al., 1988: 27–8)

As this story pinpoint, and what has been shown in the Second Wave of studies, is that

organizations are characterized by ambiguities, dilemmas and incommensurable values. Thus,

ambiguity is endemic in all organization. This is particularly so in public organizations.

Why do efforts to improve the quality of public service via organizational leadership and

management make matters worse in some respect as well as better? The goals of public

organizations, such as health care organizations or educational organizations, are both diverse

and diffuse. Over-reliance on managerialism, which seeks to resolve ambiguities in the

interests of control and accountability, has made life difficult for managers and practitioners.

13
Managerialism diverts practitioners from their core task of providing and promoting public

service into an expanding range of managerialist roles. Thus, management could be

constraining the very public service activity they are there to provide and facilitate. There

exists in public organizations endemic ambiguities that can neither be “managed away” nor

dissolved through a shared culture. Managers and front-line practitioners will live with these

ambiguities and cope with them on a daily basis.

Martin Parker provocatively states that management has become both a civilizing process and

a new civic religion: Even if we don´t share the faith in today´s management, we often seem

to believe that the answer is `better management´ and not something else altogether. (Parker,

2004:2) But, according to Parker, managerialism, that is, the generalized ideology of

management, is both limiting and problematic. Management is not always the saviour, but

often the problem. So, he invites us to be Against Management in terms of “a narrow

conception of management as a generalized technology of control” (Parker, 2009:10).

He reminds us that our ideas and conceptions of management have developed from the

mundane meaning of managing to do something (“today, I managed to get out of bed”, “last

month I managed to write this paper”, etc.) to the elitist view of management as a dominant

social institution and an instrument of control. In many pre-industrial societies it would make

no sense to disentangle something called “management” from the everyday skills through

which life was lived. We have some hint of this when we talk about managing in the wide

sense of “coping with” or “handling” a particular state of affairs. The etymology of the word

“management” reflects this. It seems to be derived from the italian mano, that means “hand”,

and its expansion into maneggiarre, or manége, the activity of handling and training horses

14
carried out by the maneggio. From this very specific form of manual control, the word

expands into a general activity of training and handling people too. Later developments of the

word into ménage (household or housekeeping) and the verb ménager (to economize). So, an

intimate technology of the body grows to become a technology of the household, and

eventually of the workplace and of the state, too. (Parker, 2004:6)

Viewing management as work practices often shifts the attention from formal management

techniques to rules-of-thumb and behavioural patterns of successful, experienced, and skilful

managers as the primary data for theorizing about management. Management or “managing”,

as some writers in this wave prefer to talk about (fx. Parker, 2004), is inseparable from

ordinary human activity. Thus, management is embedded within and inseparable from

particular activities and practices. Rather than regarding management as a distinct body of

knowledge and expertise that people can have and apply, as an applied science, these writers

suggest that management is better regarded as something that people do, as an art or a craft.

Management is as work practices conducted by managers in their everyday work. Managerial

work is seen as a craft that requires experience, skill, and artistry. Instead of evaluating

management techniques according to their internal logic and systematic qualities, the practice

perspective is interested in how widespread certain management practices are, how they are

performed in everyday work, and what the outcomes are.

This reminds us of what it is that managers do when they manage: they solve problems, they

control and discipline workers, they make things efficient, they might even make things more

humane. They do so by representing and intervening: making activities and actions knowable

15
by producing signs and texts (organization charts, job descriptions, product specifications,

operational procedures, etc.).

Thus, the second wave of management studies have made clear that that the dominant

conception of management in terms of rational planning and control is reductionist. This

critique brings important insights into current discussions regarding management in general

and New Public Management in particular. But the critique often dismisses rationality

altogether as the failed project of the Enlightenment. But to be against planning and control

altogether seems to me to be equally reductionist. To acknowledge that management is not an

universal solution, is not to recognize it as an universal problem. We should be looking for

both rigor and relevance, that is relevant rigor.

Towards a the third wave: Modelling “modest management”

To sum up: The first wave of management studies is dominated by an instrumental or

“managerialist” conception of rationality. A second wave of management studies have made

clear that this conception of rationality is reductionist, but the critique often dismisses

rationality altogether as the failed project of the Enlightenment.

In the final part of the paper I will argue that rationality should be seriously engaged with as a

concept, but that such a serious engagement will illuminate rationality as a multi-faceted

concept.

This conception allows us to engage with rationality in a theoretical fruitful and ethically

engaged manner that challenges us to see rationality as a form of activity or labor.

16
New Public Management in Denmark does not represents a uniform, uni-linear and

monolithic concept of technical rationality. Nor does management in general. Thus, rather

than representing a uniform, uni-linear and monolithic concept of technical rationality,

different forms of management exhibit their own distinctive and non-reducible forms of

organized rationality. They do not necessarily follow the same path, towards the same end.

Rather, they often have non-uniform trajectories, not entirely unrelated to their rather differing

purposes and the ethos framing them. Thus, they have to be described and understood in their

own terms, rather than being “assimilated” into a meta-theory of rationality. And furthermore,

the tensions between these forms of organized rationality need to be outlined and appreciated.

As a methodological framework of analysis, the paper argues that what has been suggested as

the “The Stacey Matrix” (Brenda Zimmerman, following Stacey, 2000) might guide

management students in dealing or coping with, and in this broad sense “managing” the risk

of managerialism as well as other forms of reductionist tendencies within management

studies. This framework suggests that the tasks and issues of management can be more or less

close to certainty and more or less close to agreement. Only when the issues are close to

certainty and close to agreement, can managers use instrumental techniques of linear planning

and control. This is sound management practice for issues and decisions that fall in this area.

But when issues are not close to certainty or close to agreement, other forms of management

are called for. Fx. when issues have a high degree of agreement, but not much certainty as to

the effects of particular initiatives to create the desired outcome, technical monitoring against

a preset plan will properly not work. In such circumstances, a strong focus on shared missions

or vision may substitute for this kind of monitoring. Thus, the goal is to head towards an

agreed upon future state even though the specific paths cannot be predetermined. Other issues

17
have a high degree of certainty about how outcomes are created, but equally have a high

degree of disagreement about which outcomes are desirable. Thus, neither plans nor shared

mission are likely to work in such circumstances. Instead, politics become more important in

the sense that negotiation, coalition building, and compromise may be necessary in order to

deal with the situation. Situations where there are very high levels of uncertainty and

disagreement. Stacey denominates this the zone of complexity. In this zone of complexity the

traditional management approaches are not very effective, but it is the zone of high creativity,

innovation, and breaking with the past to create new modes of operating.

Insert figure 2

Following The Stacey Matrix, what determines the form of management is to what extent the

tasks and issues of the management are more or less close to certainty and more or less close

to agreement. But the level of certainty and agreement can themselves be contested, and thus,

object of uncertainty and disagreement. As they are, I will argue, in the case of New Public

Management in Denmark.

Thus, New Public Management in Denmark, and management in general, can be analyzed as

an inherently contestable concept and practice. Hence, The Stacey Matrix offers a

methodological framework of analysis that helps student to move beyond simple dichotomies

of rational versus irrational management towards a conception of management that allows

different forms of management to exhibit their own distinctive and non-reducible forms of

18
organized rationality as well as appreciating the tensions between them. Following this

matrix, technico-rational management is not regarded as a universal solution, but neither is it

regarded as a universal problem. Rather, it is regarded as specific solutions to specific

problems, with an inherent risk of not being adequate or of creating new problems.

Life in organizations is sometimes messy, complex, open to various interpretations and

therefore contestable. In other words: it is not always predictable and controllable. This means

that the more ways managers have of viewing the world and of exploring possibilities, the

better able they will be to manage in responsive and responsible ways. Managing is relational

and reflexive. This means that instead of taking a realist view of organizations as fixed

entities, we have a dialectical relationship with our social world: we shape and are shaped by

our experiences as we talk and interact with others. Managing relationally is about dialogue,

not monologue, seeing conversations as crucial ways of figuring out between us what needs to

be done, without having neither too much not to little faith in management in terms of rational

planning and control.

The Stacey Matrix provides a methodological framework for analyzing how different forms

of rigor is relevant in different situations and circumstances. This allows an analysis of how

different forms of management exhibit their own distinctive and non-reducible forms of

organized rationality, thus allowing for considerations on both rigor and relevance, and,

hence, for managing managerialism as other management problems – in responsive and

responsible ways.

19
References

Bennis, Warren and Nanus, Burt. Leaders. 1985. The Strategies for Taking Charge. Harper

and Row: New York, 1985

Carlson, S. 1951. Executive Behavior. University of California

Cassell & Lee. 2011. Introduction. In Cassell & Lee (eds). 2011 Challenges and Controversies

in Management Research. London: Routledge

Cunliffe, A. 2009. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about

management. London:Sage

Drucker, P. 1973. Management: Task, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper & Row

Gill & Johnson. 2010. Research Methods for Managers. London: Sage (4th ed.)

Hoyle, E. & M. Wallace. 2005. Educational Leadership. London: Sage

Lather, P. 2004. This IS Your Father´s Paradigm. Government Intrusion and the Case of

Qualitative Research in Education, In: Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1); 15-34

Luthans, F., R.M. Hodgetts and S.A. Rosenkrantz. 1988. Real Managers. Cambridge:

Ballanger

Mintzberg, H. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row

Mintzberg, H, B. Ahlstrand and J. Lampel (eds). 2010. Management. It isn´t what you think.

Canada: Person

Parker, M. 2004. Against Management. Cambridge: Polity Press

Stacey, R. 2000. Strategic management and organisational dynamics: the challenge of

complexity. Harlow: Prentice Hall, 2011

Stewart, R. 1967. Managers and Their Jobs: A Study of the Similarities and Differences in the

Way Managers Spend Their Time. Basingstoke. The MacMillan Press, 1988

20
Figure 1.

The expansion of management concerns

Tasks (technical issues)

Roles and relationships (social and psychological issues)

Learning and development (pedagogical issues)

Culture (habitual and anthropological issues)

Communication (communication issues)

Values and beliefs (philosophical issues)

21
Tabel 1. Two ideal types of managerialism

Characteristic Neo-taylorism Culture management

Form of control Direct Indirect

Control mechanism Overt Overt and covert

Control aim Behavioral compliance Beliefs and values

Generic mechanism for Target setting, Formulating goals,

channeling agency performance indicators fostering commitment

Generic mechanism for Surveillance through Self-discipline, sanctions

delimiting agency monitoring, testing, etc. for lack of commitment

22
Figure 2. The Stacy Matrix

Far from Political Chaos

agreement management

Complexity

Close to Technical Value

agreement management management

Close to Far from

certainty certainty

23