Võimusuhted organisatsioonis on keskne küsimus nii organisatsiooni mõistmisel, mõtestamisel kui disainimisel. Ometi, vähemalt minuni jõudvates praktikates, viitab argipäevapraktika, et võimusuhete küsimused on pigem midagi, mis kuuluvad teadlaste vms mõtlejate valdkonda ja “praktikud” teavad, kuidas asjad tegelikult käivad. (siin ei ole irooniat või kriitikat, vaid reflektsioon – mul ei ole midagi selle vastu, kui eksin)

Siinviidatu võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele organisatsioonidega puutumuses olijatele ning lisaks tudengitele-uurijatele, sest uurimustöös kasutatav metoodika ja andmestik on iseenesest midagi, millest on paljugi õppida.


As society and social problems change, organizations across a range of sectors—from multinational corporations to local policing precincts—are adopting practices that appear to democratize decision making, information, and access to valued goods and services. Closed-door conversations among elected officials drawing up municipal budgets are being traded for public deliberation and democratic voting on the use of taxpayer money (Baiocchi and Ganuza 2017).

Muutuseid on märgata:

In some neighborhoods, top-down decision making by school officialsand police officers has been replaced by local school councils and community-policing partnerships (Fung 2001).

Kas muudatused viivad soovitud tagajärgedeni?

However, as democratic innovations have become increasingly common, they have not necessarily led to their intended outcome: decreased levels of inequality due to increased community voice in decisions related to valued goods and services (Lee, McQuarrie, and Walker 2015; Baiocchi and Ganuza 2017; Levine 2017).

Autor küsib:

What types of interactions facilitate the redistribution of power across institutional roles?

… ja täpsustab eesmärki:

I seek to understand moments of power redistribution at each of my sites, moments when conventional role-based power imbalances—such as that between teacher and student—were minimized or erased.

Vihje võimukonteksti kujundamisele:

Alternative organizations often establish formal structures that guard against decision making by the few—such as governance structures that give each participant an equal vote, rules that make any temporarily delegated authority subject to recall by the collective, and organizational structures that separate powers among decision-making bodies (Rothschild-Whitt 1979; Swidler 1979; Freeman 2013; Jaumier 2017; Diefenbach 2019; Sobering 2019).


Taken together, the bodies of research on democratic innovations and alternative organizations contribute to an understanding of organizational alternatives to hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of control.

Autor pakub ja testib tüpoloogiat:

All four types of encounters took place at DSchool and the Community Project. In some ways and at some times, power relations were successfully shifted and power was effectively balanced among participants within each organization. But in other ways and at other times, power relations instead congealed into conventional imbalances between teachers and students, adults and children, grantors and grantees, staff and participants.

Vihje lugemishuvi suurendamiseks eeskätt juhtidele-ametnikele:

Those moments laid bare the absence of organizational structures that guarded against exclusion at various levels within the organization. Without such structures in place, for some types of decisions and in some domains of the organization, there were no formal checks and balances to prevent the exclusion of some while concentrating power in the hands of others—despite the Community Project’s commitment to broad community participation and governance. […] These findings highlight an important element that has been largely overlooked in previous research investigating attempts to shift power relations: the importance of consistency and alignment of power-shifting mechanisms at multiple levels throughout an organization or group.

Amanda Barrett Cox (2021) Powered Down: The Microfoundations of Organizational Attempts o Redistribute Power. American Journal of Sociology. The University of Chicago. https://doi.org/10.1086/716591