Siinviidatud vabalevis olev artikkel toob lugejani neoliberaalse vaatenurga järelmid ja seab küsimärgi alla funktsiooni- ja valdkonnaspetsiifilise teadmuse alahindamise juhtimises. Autorid demonstreerivad erinevate empiiriliste näidete analüüsi kaudu üli-organisatsioonide ja üli-juhtimise võimalikke kitsaskohti. Artikkel oleks kasulik lülitada juhtimise kursuse seminaritekstiks.
Neoliberalism ja juhtimine – konteksti loovad vihjed:
Liberal and especially neoliberal globalization have generated an expansion in the imagined capabilities of individuals and organizations to pursue purposive action […] One result has been the transformation of older, distinct entitiesfirms, charities, hospitals, universities, and the like – into more similar “hyper-organizations” that incorporate multiple purposes and rationalized processes, and proliferate across sectoral and national boundaries
we analyze the current wave of hyper-management discourse that emphasizes diffuse individual and organizational charisma and empowerment, in contrast to centralized bureaucratic authority or narrow technical rationality. We see two main dimensions: expanded purposes and expanded leadership.
Üli-juhtimine ja selle kaks dimensiooni:
Neither bureaucratic authority nor scientific management, hyper-management assumes the empowered status of individual and organizational “actors” in the contemporary world. […] First, expanded purposes, so goals are now imagined as the autonomous choices and decisions of organized actors. […] A second dimension is expanded leadership: hypermanagers are to unify and lead other empowered internal and external actors, not subordinates.
because organizations become hyper-organizations incorporating collateral social functions (deriving from human rights, the environment, or obligations to a larger array of stakeholders in globalized comparisons), management can no longer focus only on narrow purposes, such as building a university for teaching and research or a firm for amassing profits. […] For example, university leaders need to show that, beyond teaching and research, they care about being green, contributing to local economies, ensuring the social and emotional well-being of their students and staff, and contributing to diversity and equality
hyper-managers are to employ deeply personal “soft” skills with charismatic dimensions, such as collaboration, communication, negotiation, and inspiration. Leadership training becomes more central and takes on a quasi-spiritual flavor promoting self-discovery
Hyper-management stems most immediately from the neoliberal cultural ideologies formed in the 1980s and widely adopted in the 1990s, as well as from the expanded hyper-organization of the period […] the term “neoliberalism” refers to an ideology with broad social, cultural, and political dimensions that valorize a society constructed by actors (individuals, but also organizations)
Both hyper-organization and hyper-management reflect the dominance of neoliberal cultural doctrines. But they also drive each other, ideologically and perhaps organizationally: they coexist in a mutually supportive feedback loop
The hyper-manager has universal qualities transcending basic functional requirements – a good one can supposedly manage anything anywhere. […] The manager of a paper company may no longer need to know what a tree is […] Hyper-organizations take this abstraction to an extreme level: a paper company may no longer make paper but may have a broader set of functions and a larger C-suite.
Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2021). Hyper-management: Neoliberal expansions of purpose and leadership. Organization Theory, 2(3), 26317877211020327.