Saladusi ei ole olemas, need luuakse. Selle üle ilmselt vaidlust ei ole. Samuti ka selle üle, et organisatsioonides luuakse palju saladusi. Siinviidatu võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele organisatsioonidega puutumuses olijatele, kuid ka avaramale lugejaskonnale, sest saladustega kokkupuude on kõikidel (ka siis, kui sellest aimugi ei ole).
Secrecy is a paramount dimension of organizational life, viewed by Max Weber (Gerth & Mills, 1948), Georg Simmel (1906) and Robert Merton (1968) as an inherent characteristic of complex organizations (see Bean, 2017 and Costas & Grey, 2014 for recent overviews). The significance of secrecy is especially evident in the political arena in organizations because members use a variety of secrecy practices such as forming coalitions behind-the-scenes (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988), distorting and restricting information flow (Feldman, 1988) and withholding scarce knowledge (Jackall, 1988) to gain power and influence, as well as to contest institutional power and authority (Morrill, Zald, & Rao, 2003).
Autorid seavad eesmärgi:
Our focus is on why and how middle managers use secrecy to explore and promote strategic initiatives in organizations. […] In this article, we seek to address these gaps first by conceptualizing secrecy in the political arena as a dynamic social process that is oriented toward gaining influence and power and is enacted through a distinct set of practices intentionally designed to conceal and control identities, activities and information.
Mis on saladus?
Organizational secrecy has been defined as ‘the ongoing formal and informal social processes of intentional concealment of information from actors by actors in organizations’ (Costas & Grey, 2014, p. 1423; emphasis in original). […] However, since we conceptualize secrecy as a multidimensional continuum of visibility, knowledge and attribution rather than as a binary secrecy–transparency dichotomy, there is partial disclosure in some instances.
Kolm keskset praktikat:
Three key practices relating to the process of instigating and promoting strategic initiatives in secrecy emerged from our informants’ experiences: (1) selecting for enrolment; (2) sequencing involvement; and (3) controlling information.
We find that secrecy enables middle managers to shape cognition, emotions and exchange relations as they compete for scarce resources, such as attention and support. We also find that secrecy can lead to two opposite outcomes. A carefully managed secrecy process enhances receptivity to strategic renewal, whereas mismanaged secrecy leads to resistance and suspicion.
Toegel, I., Levy, O., & Jonsen, K. (2022). Secrecy in Practice: How Middle Managers Promote Strategic Initiatives behind the Scenes. Organization Studies, 43(6), 885–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840621998563