I came across an
interesting article which attempts to counterbalance the extreme polarities of
domination and self determination. In this article, Georges and Romme (1999)
describe a concept which they call the circularity of power.
Accordingly, they argue that this concept ‘involves the co-existence and
integration of hierarchical and self organising control’, pp. 802-814. Georges
and Romme (1999) use the following three rules as the structural basis of the
circular model, pp. 808-810:
Decision
making about policy at all levels is governed by consent.
Every member
of the organisation belongs to at least once circle.
Double linking
between hierarchically ordered circles.
It is worth
noting that several authors have previously attempted to define the issues
surrounding organisational democracy and governance. Weber (1968) articulated
that in organisations ‘certain persons will act in such a way as to carry out
the order governing the organisation’, pp. 48-49. This view posits the need for
order and stability in organisations and how power is used to build legitimacy
and social order for those who are to be governed in organisations. Coicaud
(1997), cited in Courpasson (2000) also supports Weber’s view by arguing
that ‘legitimacy is the recognition of the right to govern’, pp. 13-14.
Weber’s framework
of domination is contradicted by one adopted by Friedberg (1993), cited in
Courpasson (2000) which he calls ‘social entrepreneurship’. This
opposing view argues that domination is limited by the concentration of power
in the hands of select few. According to Friedberg (1993), domination ignores
how organisational governance is produced by a set of local games and not by a
political centralisation capable of ruling and imposing people’s stakes and
people’s strategies’ (Courpasson 2000, pp. 145-150)
Whilst this
latter view seems to be sympathetic to the concept of the circularity of power,
I have some reservations about its effectiveness in distributing organisational
power. For example Nonaka (1994) argues that ‘while hierarchical formal
organization mainly carries out the task of combination and internalization,
self-organizing teams perform the task of socialization and externalization.
This also improves the ability of an organization to survive, pp. 30-32. This
view is however situational on the type of national cultures and appetite for
risk. A high uncertainty avoidance and masculinity (Hofstede, 1991) culture
like the Japanese may not necessarily take to a system with ambiguous responsibilities
and boundaries around the decision making process. There is also the risk of
teams developing a groupthink mentality and not necessarily viewing decisions
from a variety of perspectives.
The idea of
making decisions by consent is bound to create delays and paralysis in the
organisation as some decisions will require more discussion to get the full
consent of everyone. Admittedly some individuals in the circular unit may
struggle to freely make decisions.
The concept of
circularity does not tackle potential conflict of interest as defined by
Jensen’s et al (1976) agency theory. After all who is to say employees will not
be seeking to maximise their own wealth and security at the expense of
financial stakeholders. Whilst the article uses a case study based in the
Netherlands, which has a strong preference for stakeholder capitalism, it is
severely limited by the lack of a similar comparator case study based in a
country that espouses shareholder capitalism where the emphasis is on
maximising shareholder value.
Overall the
concept of circularity is a novel one that counter balances the traditional
command and control structure. But the juxtaposition of domination and self
determination show that simply putting forward an alternative form of
organisation is not enough. There must be a more robust demonstration of its
application in a wide variety of sectors and industries before it can be taken
seriously.
References
Courpasson, D.
‘Managerial strategies of domination. Power in soft bureaucracies’, Organisation
studies, 2000, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp.141-158
Georges, A.
Romme, L. (1999), ‘Domination, Self determination and Circular organising’, Organisation
studies, 1999, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp. 801-832
Hofstede, G.
(1991), ‘Cultures and organisations’, London, McGraw-Hill
Jensen, Michael,
and William Meckling (1976),’Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency
costs and ownership structure’, Journal of financial economics, Volume 3,
pp. 305-360
Nonaka, Ikujiro
(1994),’a dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation’, Organisation
science, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 14-37
Weber, M.
(1968),’Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology, edited by G
Roth and C Wittich, New York, Bedminster press
No comments:
Post a Comment