Siinviidatu on peatükk raamatust Project Management, mis küll võib hinna tähenduses kallis tunduda, kuid organisatsioonihuvilised võiksid siiski soetamist-lugemist kaaluda. Endiselt mõnevõrra üllatav on tõsiasi, et paljudes avalikes organisatsioonides ning inimeste igapäevaelus on n-ö projektmõtlemine ja praktikad sageli üsna tagaplaanil. Tihti väljendub see muuhulgas nt kriitiliste ressursside, eesmärkide ja ajalimiidi hägususes või lausa tähelepanuta jätmises. Siinviidatud raamatu võiks läbi lugeda kaanest kaaneni, kuid viitan siiski vaid organisatsiooni disainiga spetsiifilisemalt seotud peatükki.

Organisatsiooni struktuuri tähendus siinses tekstis, kontekstiks:

“In addition, it is a visual representation of an organization to describe the roles and responsibilities of the employee and the decision-making hierarchy across the organization.” (Thakkar, 2022, p. 28)

Kvaliteetse organisatsioonidisaini eelised, sh nt:

“The key advantages of a well-designed organizational structure are listed below.” (Thakkar, 2022, p. 29) 1. The company’s success largely depends upon the flow of information. The organization structure helps the individuals and departments better coordinate their efforts.” (Thakkar, 2022, p. 29)

Organisatsioonistruktuur ja efektiivsus on paljude arvates seotud ning muuhulgas näiteks aitab asjakohane disain vältida n-ö tühja tööd:

“It reduces the possibility of “runarounds.” A runaround happens under a lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities. Therefore, the project manager should ensure the progress of activities without any runarounds.” (Thakkar, 2022, p. 30)

Projektorganisatsiooni struktuurist:

“The project manager executes full power in determining the priorities, use of resources, and selecting team members for the project. All members of the project team are directly responsible to the project manager. Once the project is completed, the resources are utilized for another project.” (Thakkar, 2022, p. 32)

Vähem juhtimist:

“The removal of management layers can foster faster decision-making and reduce administrative costs. Employees can experience an increase in power and develop greater courage. Using a group-based structure, employees usually solve problems without consulting experts, which reduces the time required to complete the actions.” (Thakkar, 2022, p. 42)

Esimene samm otsustamisel:

“It may seem obvious, but the first step in determining the decision is to find the decision. In other words, we have to choose and define the type of decision we should take, how to change our work process, or improve our product or service.” (Thakkar, 2022, p. 43)

Tekstis rõhutatakse läbivalt alternatiivide otsimist ning nende vahel valimist:

“Once we have analyzed the information, we must develop different options regarding the decision we should make. Therefore, it helps to know about alternatives and their evaluation.” (Thakkar, 2022, p. 43)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“Key characteristics of organizational structure are: easy, accountability and continuity, delegation of authority, the use of the executive body, clear authority line. […] Team-based lateral organization structure is one of the newest forms of business organization. The lateral structure based on a team is an organizational table that groups the same level of employee groups as teams for maintaining specific job functions.” (Thakkar, 2022, p. 50)

Thakkar, J. J. (2022). Project Organization. In J. J. Thakkar (Ed.), Project Management: Strategic and Operational Planning (pp. 27–52). Springer Nature.

Siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst võiks suurt huvi pakkuda kõikidele organisatsioonihuvilistele, sest keskendub keskastmejuhtide praktikaid raamistavatele pingetele. Kel huvi organisatsioonikäitumist mõista ja/või muuta, see võiks siit mõndagi leida.


“‘These people [i.e., middle managers] are costing the company huge amounts of money through running their own agendas, and doing the kiss-up kick-down style of leading. They may have the very senior leaders fooled, but not the teams who are doing the actual work and responsible for the numbers’. […] career strategy at workplaces: Middle managers who use flattery in interactions with superiors (i.e., ‘kiss-up’), but become exploitative and abusive when interacting with their subordinates (i.e., ‘kick-down’).” (Gerpott and Van Quaquebeke, p. 2)

Tõuge uurimustööks:

“some middle managers regularly engage in Kiss-Up-Kick-Down (KUKD) behaviours – a phenomenon that, although apparently prevalent in practice, has not received any scholarly attention.” (Gerpott and Van Quaquebeke, p. 2)

Autorid lubavad:

“In our analysis, we focus on middle management, i.e., the decision-makers who link the strategic apex with the operating core (Mintzberg, 1989) because their role entails extensive vertical code switching – i.e., the act of regularly alternating between behavioural patterns that are directed toward higher-power and lower-power interaction partners (Anicich and Hirsh, 2017), and, as such, logically affords more opportunity to engage in KUKD than the other organizational hierarchy levels.” (Gerpott and Van Quaquebeke, p. 2)

Keskastmejuhid pingete keskmes:

“while feeling pressure from lower-level managers trying to push their way up. This pressure further intensifies as organizations seek to generally decrease their internal levels of hierarchy or replace them through technology (Gratton, 2011; Safak and Farrar, 2021; Tschang and Almirall, 2021). Accordingly, the pressure to outdo others can be considered particularly strong in middle management and therefore creates a fertile breeding ground for the KUKD phenomenon.[” (Gerpott and Van Quaquebeke, p. 2)

Ümberlülitumine ühelt strateegialt teisele:

“KUKD describes strategic vertical code switching (Anicich and Hirsh, 2017) in which middle managers alternate between kissing-up (when addressing upper hierarchical levels) and kicking-down (when addressing lower hierarchical levels).” (Gerpott and Van Quaquebeke, p. 2)

KUKD kontseptuaalne mudel:

Kaht strateegiat iseloomustavad praktikad:

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“In the vein of phenomenon-based theorizing (Fisher et al., 2021; Van de Ven, 2007), our framework offers useful insights for organizations that want to go beyond anecdotal evidence and avoid promoting KUKD managers. Specifically, we posit that a central problem of KUKD derives from resource-poor middle managers who are particularly close to their promotion (Garcia et al., 2013): Such managers presume that their KUKD behaviour will pay off in terms of resource gains that are relevant for their promotion.” (Gerpott and Van Quaquebeke, p. 22)

Gerpott, F. H., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (n.d.). Kiss-Up-Kick-Down to Get Ahead: A Resource Perspective on How, When, Why, and With Whom Middle Managers Use Ingratiatory and Exploitative Behaviours to Advance Their Careers. Journal of Management Studies, n/a(n/a), 1–29.

Organisatsioon kui allsüsteemide võrgustik ja õppiv süsteem on organisatsioonide erialakirjanduses juba üle poole sajandi mõtteainet andnud. Siinviidatu on huvipakkuv eeskätt põhjusel, et võtab strateegilise juhtimise perspektiivi. Tekst võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele organisatsioonihuvilistele, kuid kindlasti nendele, kes juhtimise eest töötasu vastu võtavad.


“Recently, the review by Davis and DeWitt (2021) made the related point that the fields of strategy and organization theory rarely interact.” (Greve and Zhang, 2022, p. 1)

Fookuse sättimine:

“A good starting point is that Strategic Organization (hereafter SO!) has articles that combine the two to make strong contributions. The individual-level foundations of the behavioral theory of the firm (hereafter BTF)1 has been extended with research showing how individuals have different approaches to problemistic search (Banerjee et al., 2019). The organizational behaviors hypothesized in BTF have been supported and extended by research on how firms explore when entering new product markets (Hoang and Ener, 2015). […] Organizational and individual level theory has been merged to form theory on how performance feedback and risk taking is influenced by the top management team, with supporting evidence (Kolev and McNamara, 2020).” (Greve and Zhang, 2022, p. 2)

Siinse voo lugejatele tuttav dilemma: kas preskriptiivne või deskriptiivne?

“Although the field of strategy has largely moved away from prescriptive theory outlining how firms can best win competitive battles of various kinds, it still has a strong forward-looking emphasis that differs greatly from how most BTF research emphasizes learning from experience (but see Gavetti and Levinthal, 2000).” (Greve and Zhang, 2022, p. 2)

Organisatsiooni struktuur, võimusuhted ja õppimisvõime:

“Goals trigger and direct search, and subunit structures determine who is responsible for the search (Greve, 2018). Examination of organizational structure has been surprisingly slow given the great interest in structures in early organization theory (e.g. March and Simon, 1958), and perhaps also because the list of questions to explore is surprisingly long. […] We already know, however, that the combination of authority and power structures with goals affects organizational learning (Gaba and Joseph, 2013). […] Even when organizations share goals, they address problems differently because the search for a solution to problems (or pursuit of opportunities) happens in a context, and the structuration of an organization into subunits that exchange information shapes this context (Schulz, 2001).” (Greve and Zhang, 2022, p. 4)

Tuntud nähtuse vähetuntud aspektid:

“It is common knowledge that the switch to an environmental focus in organizational theory took place in the 1970s (Scott, 1987), after Cyert and March (1963). It is less well recognized that because search for solutions was a central focus of Cyert and March (1963), the book contained theory on the initiation of search and case studies on how search proceeded to a decision (or nondecision).” (Greve and Zhang, 2022, p. 6)

Lugemishuvi suurendav vihje intra- ja interdistsiplinaarsest arengust.

“The growth of research establishing these four features of the strategic organization is obviously not dependent on any single journal. Nor can it be. The necessary research streams are too large to be accommodated by any single journal.” (Greve & Zhang, 2022, p. 7)

Greve, H. R., & Zhang, C. M. (2022). Is there a strategic organization in the behavioral theory of the firm? Looking back and looking forward. Strategic Organization, 1–11.

Jätkusuutliku organisatsiooni disain võiks olla küll väljakutseks nii neile, kel tõsi taga kui neile, kel soov lihtsalt silma paista. Siinviidatu pakub raamistiku, mille mõtestamine iga organisatsiooni kontekstis oleks huvitav nii asjaosalistele kui annaks lootust keskkonnale (kuigi viimasel ei ole inimeste pingutustest sooja ega külma).


“Sustainability provides new opportunities where firms need to create a sustainable business model with the optimal fit between the rising demands of a sustainable economy and their business model, strategy, structure, incentives, human skills, IT systems, and all the other aspects of the organizational design of the firm.” (Obel and Kallehave, 2022, p. 65)

ABC … meeldetuletuseks:

“The three main pillars of sustainable development include: economic growth, environmental protection, and social equality (Purvis et al. 2019)” (Obel and Kallehave, 2022, p. 65)

Algus on tähtis, kommunikatsioon on oluline, … kuid …

“Sustainable development in a firm is often started by setting up a team or unit for the sustainable development with a major focus on communication. But in most cases that is not very effective with respect to being successful in all three bottom lines to create an impact. When sustainable development is located in one unit, it makes integration difficult (Smet et al. 2021). […] Sustainable development requires strong incentives based on key indicators and metrics for all three bottom lines. In particular, an incentive issue arises, when the success of the three bottom lines is distributed among different organizational units.” (Obel and Kallehave, 2022, p. 66)

Kolm I-d:

“It all comes down to the four I’s5: how can we create Incentives to stimulate Innovation through the Integration of sustainability in a way that creates the biggest Impact?” (Obel and Kallehave, 2022, p. 66-67)

Lühiajalised eesmärgid ja lihtsad praktikad oleks vaja sidustada pikemaajaliste eesmärkide ja faktilise mõjuga:

“Firms easily adopt short-term sustainability practices, such as lean, green, and social management systems, because the primary objective of businesses still is profit maximization for shareholders and short-term profitability (Wu et al. 2017). However, a truly sustainable firm is capable of “addressing short-term as well as long-term problems and to offer short-term as well as long-term potentials and opportunities” (Hörisch et al. 2014, p. 333).” (Obel and Kallehave, 2022, p. 67)

Organisatsiooni disain peab vastama kõigile kolmele põhimõttele:

“Thus, a sustainable organization design effort has to be made to find a design that at the same time can enhance all three bottom lines.” (Obel and Kallehave, 2022, p. 67)

Esimene samm:

“The first step in the design of a sustainable firm is to decide where the organization is concerning expected impact and the scope and goal to obtain that.” (Obel and Kallehave, 2022, p. 73)

Strateegiast ei pääse:

“The next step in designing a sustainable organization is to develop a strategy that operationalizes the business model and can support obtaining the goals.” (Obel and Kallehave, 2022, p. 73)

See tundub juba nagu juhend …

“The integration is the design of Configuration, Leadership, Climate, Task Design, Agents, Coordination and Control, and People and People Behavior.” (Obel and Kallehave, 2022, p. 73)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“1. Sustainability will be a major driver for business strategy now and in the future. 2. For a sustainable organization, the organization design has to follow fundamental design principles based on the four I’s: Incentives, Innovation, Integration, and Impact. 3. Within the frame of the four I’s, the design should be based on a contingency perspective.” (Obel and Kallehave, 2022, p. 75)

Obel, B., & Kallehave, P. (2022). Designing a sustainable organization: The four I’s framework. Journal of Organization Design11(2), 65–76.

Organisatsioonid siseselt ja organisatsioonid omavahel moodustavad väga erinevaid võrgusikke. Siinviidatu keskendub keskastmejuhtide võimalustele gruppide võrgustikes toimivas organisatsioonis. Artikkel võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele juhtimishuvilistele.

Grupipõhisus organisatsioonides suureneb ning gruppidevaheline koordineerimine muutub terviktulemuse seisukohast ikka olulisemaks.

“In today’s team-based organizations, teams have become more dependent on other teams and will continue to become more interdependent in years to come (Greer et al., 2017; Salas et al., 2017). Yet, teams are three times more likely to miss performance commitments because of coordination breakdowns with other teams than because of coordination issues within their own team (Sull et al., 2015).” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 2)

Gruppidevaheline koordineerimine on vähe tähelepanu saanud.

“Coordinating the interdependencies between teams presents serious challenges to organizations and their middle managers that are not only different from the coordination challenges within teams but also more critical to the functioning of the organization as a whole. Unfortunately, research on coordination mechanisms for intergroup effectiveness largely developed in separate literatures without much cross-pollination (e.g., Carter et al., 2020).” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 2)

Olemasolevate koordineerimismehhanismide võimekus erinevates organisatsioonivormides on surve all. Traditsioonilised hierarhiad jäävad sageli hätta.

“The organizational design literature has long argued that formal hierarchical structure is the way to coordinate the goal-directed efforts of interdependent teams (Sinha and Van de Ven, 2005). At the
same time, the boundary spanning literature argues theoretically that coordinating behaviour will result in intergroup effectiveness (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Marrone, 2010; Marrone et al., 2007) and it is middle managers’ role to engage in these coordinating behaviours (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1992; Raes et al., 2011).” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 2)

Autorid lubavad:

“To address this issue and to advance our theoretical understanding of the coordination of intergroup effectiveness and to what extent middle managers play a role, we develop an integrative framework that connects the organizational design, boundary spanning, and strategy process literatures.” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 2)

Keerukus organisatsioonides suureneb, kuid sellega ka võimekus ja potentsiaal.

“‘We are now in the era of networks of teams’ (Salas et al., 2017, p. 595), where collaboration is increasingly ‘multilevel (from top to bottom of the hierarchy) and multiunit (across all units of the organization)’ (Greer et al., 2017, p. 137). As such, it is crucial that interdependent teams work together effectively towards the organization’s collective strategic goals (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000; Greer et al., 2017; Noble, 1999; Sull et al., 2015).” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 4)

Sildav piiride ületamine:

“Boundary spanning behaviours are all behaviours that involve individuals purposefully going outside the boundaries of their own team (Ancona and Caldwell, 1990; Marrone, 2010). A large literature shows that boundary spanning improves various team-level outcomes (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Marrone, 2010).” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 6)

Struktuuri võimekus on teatud juhtudel piisav.

“We propose that for teams from the same division, structural coordination is enough to improve intergroup effectiveness, because these teams can rely on knowledge and understandings that are locally shared (i.e., within the division) and known to be locally shared, even without boundary spanning by managers.” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 9)

Kuidas ületada kohalikku teadmust ja struktuuri võimekust.

“Structural coordination allows teams to tacitly coordinate their efforts, based on local knowledge and understandings, without much managerial investment in explicit coordination through boundary spanning or need to understand the bigger picture. In comparison, behavioural coordination and
cognitive coordination are more distal and strategically focused coordinating mechanisms that can substitute for structural coordination but also benefit from each other’s influence.” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 24)

Piire ületav sildav koordineerimine on üks tõsiseltvõetav võimalus gruppide võrgustikes hakkamasaamisel.

“Accordingly, organizations may take steps to develop middle managers’ focus in taking on boundary spanning activities by developing their understanding of where boundary spanning is most needed and most effective. That is, boundary spanning training (cf. Marrone et al., 2007) could develop
managers’ understanding not only of how to engage in boundary spanning but also of when to do so.” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 26)

Porck, J. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (2022). An Integrative Model of the Role of Structural, Behavioural, and Cognitive Coordination in Intergroup Effectiveness: How Middle Managers Play a Role. Journal of Management Studies, n/a(n/a).

Panoptikum on ilmselt enamikele inimestele lihtsalt mingi võõrsõna või tundmatu nimi. J. Benthami kirjatöödest alguse saanud ja M. Foucault töödes panoptitsismiks arendatud põhimõtted pakuvad ka täna sisukaid võimalusi organisatsioonide mõtestamisel. Teksti tasuks lugeda kõikidel organisatsioonihuvilistel, kuid kindlasti neil, kes töötasu juhtimise eest vastu võtavad. Ei maksa välistada, et mitmeid lugejaid tabab äratundmisrõõm …, mis intellektuaalselt võib olla erutav, kuid praktiliselt õõvastav.

Panoptikum – kontekstiks:

“The ‘panopticon’ is a key emblematic concept in management and organization studies (MOS) that has long fuelled scholarly conversations. The panopticon (which etymologically comes from the ancient Greek opticon for ‘observe’ and pan for ‘all’) designates a prison design originally developed in the 18th century by the utilitarian thinker Jeremy Bentham (1995/2010, 1997) in which the observer (the guard) can watch all prisoners without the prisoners being aware of this surveillance.” (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, p. 1)

Kontekst täpsustub:

“As the panopticon is increasingly used, but also discussed and debated, praised and contested, it seems advisable to question the nature and use of this metaphor in MOS research, in which it remains an iconic concept.” (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, p. 2)


“How has the panopticon metaphor been interpreted in MOS literature, and for what purposes? Is it still a relevant metaphor in MOS research? And to what extent can (or should) the panopticon inform MOS research in ways that go beyond its initial interpretation?” (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, p. 2)

Panoptikumist panoptitsismi:

“In its form, panopticism relies on supervision, control and correction, and translates a vision of the subject as a passive actor who can be disciplined and moulded. According to Foucault (2002, p. 70), panopticism designates . . . a type of power that is applied to individuals in the form of continuous individual supervision, in the form of control, punishment, and compensation, and in the form of correction, that is, the modelling and transforming of individuals in terms of certain norms.” (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, p. 3)

Distsipliin loob subjekte ja kuulekaid kehasid:

“Discipline thus produces subjected, practiced and ordered ‘docile’ bodies that become units or objects of information, not subjects in a conversation (Foucault, 1977).” (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, p. 3)

Panoptikumi eesmärk on internaliseerida osalistele järelevalvemehhanismid viisil, mis muudaks käitumist institutsioonile sobivas suunas:

“The ultimate goal of the panopticon is to make inmates internalize the mechanism of surveillance (Foucault, 1977) and teach them appropriate behaviour to maximize the aim of the institution.” (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, p. 4)

Kirjandusülevaate metoodika kirjeldus:

“Instead, our goal in this literature review is to more specifically analyse the uses of the ‘panopticon’ concept. To review how MOS scholars have operationalized it, first we performed a systematic literature review (Engelmann et al., 2020; Hillmann & Guenther, 2021;Okoli,2015; Tranfield et al., 2003)byusing the most well-known databases in business and management (i.e. Business Source Complete, SCOPUS and Web of Science). We queried the words ‘panopticon’, ‘panoptic’, ‘panopticism’ and ‘panoptism’ and searched across text, titles, abstracts and keywords of articles in double-blind peer-reviewed journals in the MOS field.” (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, p. 4)

Panoptikumi kolm omavahel seotud dimensiooni: vorm (järelevalve ja kontroll), põhimõte (pidev nähtavalolek) ja eesmärk (kuulekate kehade tootmine).

“The three main interrelated dimensions of panopticism—that is, its form (supervision and control of self-disciplined subjects), principle (constant visibility) and goal (production of docile bodies)—are extremely powerful in making sense of control in modern organizations, thus explaining why this concept has become inspiring for MOS research.” (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, p. 7)

Panoptikum ja selle filosoofiline üldistus panoptitsism on sotsiaalse kontrolli ja järelevalve kontseptualiseerimise kesksed põhimõtted.

“Our literature review shows that the panopticon and its broader philosophy—panopticism—constitute the primary perspective with which to conceptualize social control, surveillance and their evolution in modern societies.” (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, p. 10)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks – panoptikumi mõtestamine organisatsioonides pakub endiselt suuri võimalusi ning mitmed senised tõlgendused on lausa valed.

“Following a recent trend in parallel disciplines (Brunon-Ernst, 2013a, 2013b; Tusseau, 2013), we restore Bentham’s conception of the panopticon and argue that the interpretation of the latter developed in MOS research is not only caricatural but also wrong. In this vein, paradoxically, what is often viewed as anti-panoptic features of new ways of working (e.g. autonomy and empowerment, contrasting with the disciplinary logic traditionally found in the first reading of the panopticon) is actually fundamentally panoptic, according to its initial spirit developed by Bentham (second reading).” (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, p. 17)

Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (n.d.). The panopticon, an emblematic concept in management and organization studies: Heaven or hell? International Journal of Management Reviews, n/a(n/a).

NPMid olid ajastule kohased ja neid kritiseerida ei ole mõtet. Samas ei ole põhjust ka eitada NPM reformide puuduseid ja (soovimatuid) tagajärgi. Nüüd on silmapiiril uued reformid (tegelikult mitte enam nii uued) ja on võimalus neid mõista deskriptiivselt, mitte preskriptiivselt. Ja, mõistagi, õppida seda, mida NPM õpetas. Praegu aga on rõhutus professionalismil ja see võiks olla heaks põhjuseks paljude professioonide esindajatele, et oleks aeg professiooni arendamise retoorikalt liikuda praktiliste arenguks keskkonda loovate aspektide juurde.

Peatükk on vabalevis.


“In these reforms, professionals’ responses and practical understanding of collaborative relation management have become increasingly crucial (Anteby et al. 2016). By providing opportunities for professional subjects to organize their collaboration independently based on their own expertise (Noordegraaf 2020), such reforms set out to strengthen local professionalism, thereby making public services sensitive to citizen needs (Bringselius 2019).” (Rolandsson, 2022, p. 52)

Peatüki eesmärk.

“this chapter examines how a specific group of officialsSwedish police officers—conceive of themselves and their conduct of work during the post-NPM reform. More precisely, it considers how they view their ability to act independently as knowledgeable subjects (Wain 1996) in the collaborative arrangements resulting from the Swedish police reform initiated in 2015.” (Rolandsson, 2022, p. 52)

Rootsi 2015. a politseireform on saanud palju tähelepanu. Meedias on reform leidnud palju pooldajaid aga ka vastaseid. Nüanssidesse laskumata võib ühe suurima kriitikana meenutada ehmatust, et esimest korda väga pika aja jooksul tehti reform jõuga, st paljude rootsi autorite arvates jäi kaasamine tagasihoidlikuks ja seetõttu sai reform kuulda ka politseinike valjuhäälset kriitikat. Aga see kõik on ajalugu.

“As mentioned above, the 2015 Swedish Police reform established a single national police authority, that is, a centralized management structure to replace the former 21 regional police authorities (cf. Christensen & Laegreid 2011; Björk 2021). However, the reform also introduced new forms of crossorganizational collaborations involving other local actors with the purpose of strengthening the ability of the police to respond to local needs and work ‘closer to the citizens’ (cf. Larsson & Lundgren-Sørli 2018; Statskontoret 2018).” (Rolandsson, 2022, p. 54)

Eesti suunalt vaadates jätab hea mulje politseireformijate analüütilisus; et püüti varasemaid puudujääke ületada.

“By providing local police officers with opportunities to organize collaboration across organizational boundaries independently and in accordance with their own experience and expertise (Anteby et al. 2016; Noordegraaf 2020), the reform set out to strengthen local professionalism and thereby make the police more sensitive to local needs (Bringselius 2019). These measures were intended to move the police closer to the citizens.” (Rolandsson, 2022, p. 65)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“Despite the increasingly centralized police authority urging them to align with the new organizations, the police officers attempt to act on their own judgement in relation to a variety of local demands for collaboration, suggesting that these partners also influence the conduct of local police work to some extent.” (Rolandsson, 2022, p. 66) […] “Noting how the Swedish police reform is applied by individual officers, the study identifies two types of strategizing subjects.” (Rolandsson, 2022, p. 66) […] “cynical police subjects” (Rolandsson, 2022, p. 66) […] “pragmatic police subjects” (Rolandsson, 2022, p. 66)

Rolandsson, B. (2022). Swedish Police Reform and the Emergence of New Police Subjectivities. In Transforming Subjectivities. Routledge.

Kestlik areng on tõusnud paljudes organisatsioonides juhtide agendas kõrgele kohale ning olemasolev organisatsioon nõuab sageli ümberkujundust. Sarnaseid muutuseid on lähiminevik varemgi pakkunud (nt IT arengud), kuid kopeerida midagi võimalik ei ole. Tuleb olla ettevaatlik preskriptiivse loomuga parimatest praktikatega ning mõtestada neid deskriptiivselt, sest siis on lootust õppida.

Tekst võiks huvi pakkuda suurele hulgale lugejatele nii vahetult organisatsioonidega seotud kui paljudele teistele, sest otsustamise ja disaini küsimustest pole pääsu kellelgi.


“When browsing through any recent business newspaper, management journal, or website of a professional services provider, chances are you will come across yet another survey demonstrating that “sustainability” has risen toward the top of the executive agenda.” (Vantrappen and Wagemans, 2022, p. 1)

Organisatsioonidisain nõuab teadmisi ja hoolikat läbimõtlemist.

“This requires carefully defining and assigning the roles and responsibilities for carrying out the activities required to implement the company’s sustainability strategy.” (Vantrappen and Wagemans, 2022, p. 1)

Disainivalikutel on järjekord oluline.

“Once the organization’s design choices in these primary areas have been made, secondary choices – for example regarding business processes, performance indicators, staff profiles, team size, and management systems – can be made more easily.” (Vantrappen and Wagemans, 2022, p. 3)

Autorid pakuvad kombinatsiooni kahest kesksest aspektist.

“We offer a framework to help managers make design choices for their company’s Sustainability organization. The framework is derived from the combination of two sets of considerations: 1. Sustainability focus: The substantive focus of the company’s sustainability agenda. 2. Organizational philosophy: The principles by which the company is organized in general.” (Vantrappen and Wagemans, 2022, p. 3)

Keskne dilemma paljude oluliste valikute langetamisel – kes ja kus vastutab?

“As a more general example, consider a company in the “customer solutions”/“portfolio” segment of the grid. Rather than having a heavyweight CSO in the top management team, it may be advised to distribute and strengthen capabilities in each of the business lines so that their product roadmaps and supply chains better address, for example, zero-waste opportunities.” (Vantrappen and Wagemans, 2022, p. 7)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks.

“Some companies will be tempted to copy without adequate thought the design of companies that somehow keep popping up in the media promoted as sustainability vanguards. Even less appropriate is to radically disrupt an organization in a knee-jerk response to a sudden stakeholder incident. Do with sustainability as you would with any other function.” (Vantrappen and Wagemans, 2022, p. 9)

Vantrappen, H., & Wagemans, M. (2022). How to design an organization to enable the implementation of the company’s sustainability agenda. Strategy & Leadership, ahead-of-print.

Harva võib kohata huvitavat mõttevahetust, kus muuhulgas piirid adekvaatse kriitika ja hinnangute vahel on hägustumas. Eesti keeles meenub kõige eredamalt Aaro Toomela vastus Jüri Alliku arvustusele ajakirjas 2018 a Akadeemias (nr 12). Siinviidatu on järg ka siinses voos koha leidnud 2021. a ilmunud kriitikale usaldavast juhtimisest (vt siit).

Tekst võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele tudengitele (argumenteerimise õppimiseks), organisatsioonihuvilistele ja paljudele teistele, kel huvi kriitilise mõtlemise vastu.


However, of the articles included in the authentic leadership special issue, the Katja Einola and Mats Alvesson article (2021) titled, “The Perils of Authentic Leadership Theory,” is the only one to suggest that authentic leadership is “outright perilous” to a variety of stakeholders and comparable to “pseudoscience, pop-management, consulting, and entertainment” (p. 489).

Keskne, ümberlükkamisele kuuluv väide:

The central thesis that Einola and Alvesson (2021) advance is that ALT “is not only wrong in a harmless manner, but it may be outright perilous to leadership scholars, scholarship, and those who believe in it” (p. 483). That’s quite an assertion.

Piirid hägustuvad:

Instead, we suspect that they were so caught up in their role as critical theorists, that they took a devils-advocate position to an extreme to propose counterintuitive and somewhat nonsensical arguments about the dangers of ALT.

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks (kuigi, vaevalt seda vaja on):

In the case of Einola and Alvesson’s (2021) recent critique, we have presented evidence that the scientific norms for rigor, accuracy, and fair representations of the extant literature in critical discourse have not been met. Instead, we contend that Einola and Alvesson have unwittingly engaged in a form of academic gaslighting through their efforts to persuade readers to discount experiential and empirical evidence of authentic leadership, while accepting a counterintuitive view that ALT is perilous for those who embrace it.

Gardner, W. L., & McCauley, K. D. (2022). The gaslighting of authentic leadership. Leadership.

Õpivõime on iga organisatsiooni arengu ja ellujäämise üks võtmekriteeriumitest. Tõsi, avalikes ja eraorganisatsioonides võivad tagajärjed – nii heas kui halvas – ilmneda ajateljel erinevates punktides ning väljenduda üsna erinevalt. Siinviidatu võiks kandideerida paljude kursuste seminaritekstideks ja olla viljakaks lugemisvaraks kõikidele organisatsioonidega puutumuses olijatele.


While Levitt and March’s observations were made long ago, the assumption that organizational learning (OL) enhances the performance of the organization and its members (Schilling and Kluge, 2009) has remained largely unquestioned.

Üksikisik on õppimise lähtepunkt:

To help resolve the OL-performance and individual dilemmas, we look to the role of the individual in the various levels of OL, since the foundation of OL is the individual learner (Crossan et al., 1999; Kim, 1993; March, 1991). In particular, we examine the type of judgment needed by individuals to not only discern effective from ineffective learning, but also know when challenging the status quo is needed.


How does character influence OL processes and their effectiveness?

Õppimise kasu praktikale?

Under the strain of differing viewpoints about learning and performance, two perspectives have emerged: OL with a descriptive focus recognizes that learning does not necessarily lead to performance benefits, and the learning organization (LO) with its prescriptive and practice focus, which assumes learning leads to better performance.

See tsitaat (Tsang (1997: 73)) võiks erilist huvi pakkuda parimate praktikate pooldajatele:

There is a clear distinction between the descriptive and prescriptive approaches. In the former judgment and evaluation are suspended while in the latter not only are they undertaken but the “best practices” are put forward to the reader.

Iseloom siinse teksti tähenduses:

In sum, character can be contrasted from other types of individual differences because the character dimensions (1) offer a comprehensive and nuanced view of the individual; (2) are behavior-based so that development, or learning, is possible in each dimension; and (3) link to the focal construct of judgment, which affords individuals with the agency to choose how to respond to stimuli.

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

We contribute to OL research in three important ways. First, introducing character into OL deepens OL theory by focusing on the exercise of character-based judgment and how it influences OL processes, thus addressing the dilemmas surrounding performance outcomes of OL and the role individuals play in them. “Practical wisdom” or “character-based judgment” has rarely been discussed in OL, even though they are key to understanding agency in decision making (Nguyen and Crossan, 2021). Weak character may lead to the context determining one’s actions, while the ability to choose an action is catalyzed by one’s strength of character.

Crossan, M. M., Nguyen, B., Sturm, R. E., Vera, D., Ruiz Pardo, A., & Maurer, C. C. (2022). Organizational learning through character-based judgment. Management Learning.