Organisatsioonid ja sotsiaalsed süsteemid üldiselt on nii keerulised, et kõik kõik, mis aitab seda keerukust mõista, võib huvi pakkuda paljudele. Siinviidatu on 2022. aasta esimene tekst, mida siin lehel jagan ja selleks on vähemalt kaks peamist põhjust. Esiteks, on bürokraatiaküsimuse mõistmine organisatsioonides mitte langeva, vaid tõusva tähendusega ning, teiseks, organisatsioonis kasutatavate praktikate kriitiline mõtestamine aitab ära hoida suuremaid konflikte ja juhatab teed sünergia suunas. Bürokraatiaküsimus on siin lehel 2021. aastal saanud mõningast tähelepanu (nt siin, siin, siin ja siin), kuid siinviidatud artiklis käsitletavad erinevate bürokraatia vormide praktikatest tõusetuvad pinged on midagi, mis võiks huvi pakkuda väga paljudele organisatsioonihuvilistele ja pretendeerida ka seminaritekstiks mitmetel kursustel.

Kontekstiks:

Since the 1980s, organizations have reduced formal levels of hierarchy, promoted flexibility, decentralized authority, and replaced control with trust (Hales, 2002; Josserand, Teo and Clegg, 2006). Such organizations are most often referred to as post-bureaucracies (Alvesson and Thompson, 2005). While bureaucracies are characterized by a culture of obedience, post-bureaucracies demand ‘genuine subjective attachment’ (Fleming, 2013, p. 10) from employees and thus operate with a ‘softer’ form of domination (Courpasson, 2006; Hales, 2002; Sturdy, Wright and Wylie, 2016).

Vihje post-bürokraatliku ja uus-normatiivse kontrolli võimalikele pingeallikatele:

In contrast with the normative control that is characteristic of (post)bureaucracy, some researchers have discussed neo-normative control (Endrissat, Kärreman and Noppeney, 2017; Fleming and Sturdy, 2009, 2011; Jenkins and Delbridge, 2017), which has been defined as ‘an emergent approach to managing employees which emphasizes “being yourself”through the expression of fun, individuality and difference’ (Fleming and Sturdy, 2009, p. 569).

Pingete dimensioonid:

Two main tensions arise between (post)bureaucratic and neo-normative demands, and they impact people’s subjective experiences differently. These are authenticity versus conformity, and conflation versus differentiation between life and work.

Autorid seavad sihte:

Accordingly, the aim of this study was to explore how shopfloor workers subjectively experience the tensions between (post)bureaucratic and neo-normative demands.

Post-bürokraatiast lühidalt:

In brief, the personal life can be summoned to support managerial performances, but only as much as it contributes to and aligns with them; otherwise, the private life should be excluded from the professional sphere—or possibly reformed.

Uus-normatiivsest kontrollist lühidalt:

As such, the neo-normative discourse involves the ‘enlistment of the private dimensions of employee selves’ (Fleming and Sturdy, 2009, p. 571) and thus incorporates private life into work through ‘subjectification mechanisms, generating employees who fuse private and public realms, offering existential raw material to the instrumental processes at work’ (Ekman, 2013, p. 1162).

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks vihje kokkuvõttest:

Managerial experiments with authenticity are not the benevolent endeavour to promote harmony between life and work that they pretend to be.

Bardon, T., Josserand, E., Sferrazzo, R., & Clegg, S. (2021). Tensions between (Post) Bureaucratic and Neo‐normative Demands: Investigating Employees’ Subjective Positions at EurAirportBritish Journal of Management.