2011 imk ff3 kommunikation i organiske organisationer

8/7/2019 2011 IMK FF3 Kommunikation i Organiske Organisationer

1/44

FF3Efter bureaukratiet


2/44

Agenda

Praktiske oplysninger Lokale til FF resten af semester: SP202

Information om opgaver & eksamen

Gruppediskussion af case(Pause)

Organisationer som organismer

(Pause) Kommunikation i organiske organisationer

Nste uges holdundervisning


3/44

Opgaver

Gruppe (ca 3 personer)

5-7 ns

Eksamen

Individuel

10 ns


4/44

Gruppediskussion (5 min)

Lars Kolind

Kolinds hovedpointer? Relation til kursets emner/tekster?


5/44

Rd fra Kolind...

Pil strukturen ud af organisationenFormindsk antallet af managere

Skab en management struktur bestende afmedarbejdere, ikke hierarkier med faste ledere.

Opbyg evt. en kultur med mentorer.

bn op for uformel kommunikationVirksomheden br tage afstand fra alt der har

med formel kommunikation at gre Innovationer sker, nr folk mdes

skabe et milj, der inviterer til interaktion i de

flles fysiske rammer -bne kontorlandskaber


6/44

Gruppediskussion (5 min)

Lars Kolind: Theres absolutely no doubt that oral communication is 10 times more powerful, more

creative, quicker, and nicer than writing memos (p25).

Enig eller ej? Hvorfor/hvorfor ikke?

Fordele/ulemper ved mundtlig/skriftlig kommunikation?


7/44

Contradiction?

every piece of information, with very fewexceptions, is available to everybody, Mr.

Kolind says. Anyone can click on ourstrategic plan [in the computer] and see

what we intend to do to beat Siemens.(LaBarre, 1994:24)


8/44

Livet i et glashus

Christa BreumAmhj, Medarbejderens synliggrelse i den transparente organisation


9/44

According to Douglas McGregor

Proponents of Theory Xtypically assume that:

1. Work is inherentlydistasteful to most people,and theyll avoid it like theplague if they can

2. Most workers are

unambitious, dislikeresponsibility, and prefer tobe directed

3. Most people are neithercreative nor intelligent

4. Workers need externalmotivation be that thewhip or more pay

5. Most people must be closelycontrolled and often coercedto achieve organizationalobjectives

Proponents of Theory Y

typic

all

y assume that:1. To most/many people, workis as natural as play - if theconditions are favorable

2. Most workers are ambitious,want responsibility, andprefer to make their owndecisions

3. Creativity and intelligence isspread throughoutorganizations

4. Many workers are motivatedby internal forces - e.g. aneed for self-actualization

5. People can be self-directedand creative at work if

properly motivated


10/44

Classical management was only concerned withbehavior. What workers actually thought and felt wastheir own business, as long as they behaved as

management required them to. Contemporary gurus argue that Effective leaders treatthe business problems of today as problems thataffect each workers whole being theirminds,

bodies, hearts, and spirits (Eisenberg & Goodall,p256.)

What is being managed?


11/44

Pause


12/44

Organisationer som organismer

The majorcaninfluence the battle tothe extent that his headis able to direct themachinegunner's hand

(Herbert Simon)


13/44

Arter og omgivelserne

Vi finder forskellige arter af organisationeni forskellige miljer

Visse arter er bedre tilpasset de specifikkemiljforhold end andre

Som miljer ndres, forsvindergamlearter og nye arter dukker

Inden for forskellige arter aforganisationen, finder vi helt forskelligekommunikationmnstre


14/44

Arter og omgivelser

It is possible to identify different species of organization indifferent kinds of environments (Morgan, p33).

Bureaucracies

Project-basedorganizations

Adhocracies

Matrixorganizations


15/44

Visse arter er bedre tilpasset de specifikkemiljforhold end andre

Icebear parachutes into desert


16/44

Arter og omgivelser

Claim 1: Mechanistic forms of organization,characterized by hierarchical control, are more suited to

stable environments (Courtright et al)

Claim 2: Organic organizational forms, characterized bydispersed control, are more suited to unstable

conditions

Hvorfor? Er det sandt?


17/44

Output: Too little, too late.

Input: Unforseen/surprising event

Information processing:Time-consuming, prone todistortion, delays

Betts, R.K. (1981). Surprise Despite Warning:

Why SuddenAttacks Succeed. Political ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 95, No. 4., pp. 551-572.

Hvorfor bureaukratier ikke

fungerer i turbulente miljer ...


18/44

Er or ganiske organisationerndvendigvis bedre egnet til hurtigtskiftende miljer?

Hvorfor/hvorfor ikke?


19/44

Carzo, R. & Yanouzas, J.N. (1969) Effects of flatand tall organization structureAdministrative

Science Quarterly, 14(2), pp. 178-191.


20/44

Fayol on unity of command


21/44

Omgivelserne ndrer sig,gamle arter forsvinder


22/44

Nye arter opstr


23/44

Forsvindergamle arter som bureaukratiethelt, eller er de stadigvk derud?

Hvordan adskiller de nye arter sig fra degamle?

Er ny(ere) ensbetydende med bedre?

Hvad er ligheder og forskelle mhtkommunikation mnstre?


24/44

Der findes stadig bureaukratier, og fortalerefor bureakrati - ogs p CBS

Du Gay, P. (1994) Making up managers: Bureaucracy, Enterprise, andthe LiberalArt of Separation. The British Journal of Sociology, 45(4), pp. 655-674


25/44

vor an a s er e nye arter sig fra de gamle?

Mechanistic (Bureaucratic)

Prototype: bureaucracy

Fixed rules

HierarchyCentralization of decision-making

Managers issue orders, employeesexecute them

Specialization

Standardization

Works well in stable environments

Long chains of communication

Command style of communication

Organic (project, matrix)

Prototypes: matrix- & project

Flexible values (vrdibaseretledelse

Flat (fire middle-managers)Decentralization

Employees are participants,managers merely coaches

Multijobs

Innovation

Best suited to turbulent environents

Short chains

Consultative style of communication


26/44

Evolution = fremskridt?

http://www.imaginiz.com/provocative/meta

phors/models.html


27/44

Organisationer organismer


28/44

Pause


29/44


30/44

Mechanistic versus Organic organizations

Distinction goes (at least) back to Burns and Stalker (1961)

The central premise of those authors is that as rates ofenvironmental change vary, organizations need different

systems of control, information conveyance, and authorization(p773)


31/44

Two central claims

Claim 1: Mechanistic forms oforganization, characterized by hierarchicalcontrol, are more suited to stableenvironments

Claim 2: Organic organizational forms,characterized by dispersed control, are

more suited to unstable conditions Why? Are these claims true, to begin

with?


32/44

Kommunikationsmnstre i

mekanistiske organisationer1. Command style: Instructions, orders

Communication one-way, top-down2. High level ofconflict:

top management a court of appeal where

conflicting interests get resolved (p774).

Full metal jacket


33/44

Kommunikationsmnstre i

organiske organisationer1. Consultative approach: Absence of directs commands.

All knowledgeable contributors participate in decisionmaking;

managers offer options, listen, paraphrase, question,advise.

2. Discussion and negotiation


34/44

Andre aspekter af

kommunikation som pvirkes? Kort svar: ALT. cf implikationer af skift fra specialister i

siloer til multijobs i projektbaseredeorganisationer


35/44

Problematic conception of

communication?


36/44

Basic unit of analysis

Notwhat people do individually

Rather, focus on relations

interacts ... i.e. a sequence of two contiguousbehaviors (p777)

With each interact, relational message patternsemerge


37/44


38/44

Coding scheme (p778)

One-up: messages that attempt to defineor control a situation, e.g. orders andinstructions

One-down: requests and acceptances ofanothers definition of a situation

One-across: nondemanding,nonaccepting, leveling moves, e.g.elaborations and extensions of a previousmessage


39/44

Hypotheses


40/44


41/44

Reading for next week


42/44


43/44

Is Barkers text about

communication?Around March-April 1991, I began to notice that the waythe team members talked, both informallyand at teammeetings, had changed. They did not talk so much aboutthe importance of their teamwork values as they did aboutthe need to obeythe teams work norms. Team meetingsbegan to have a confrontational tone, and the newworkers attitudes and performance became open topicsfor team discussion. When the longer-tenured team

members saw someone not acting in accordance withtheir norms, such as not being willing to do whatever ittook for the team to be successful, they said somethingabout it. (Barker, p425).


44/44

My cubicle

Ineffectual middle management suck ups

Against positive thinking

2011 imk ff3 kommunikation i organiske organisationer

Documents