Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a re‐examination of the Weberian corpus.

Discusses the Weberian corpus and the discrepancies and lacunae in Weber's accounts. Outlines “Weberian” bureacracy in the post‐bureacracy literature, the use and utility of ideal types and the problems of ideal typifications.

The so‐called “Weberian ideal type” which is the standard reference point in bureaucracy versus post‐bureaucracy discussion is only ambiguously related to what Weber himself wrote. Usually “Weberian” bureaucracy is equated with rule‐governed hierarchy. This is a gross over‐simplification of Weber's thought, but his “ideal type” demands radical re‐tooling in order to be usable. The components he itemized and the importance he attached to them are inconsistent, they are abstracted from exemplars which Weber privileged without explanation, and he gave no unambiguous criteria for deciding which components this ideal type should include or exclude. Moreover, he equated bureaucratic organization with modernity, when on his own account there were fully bureaucratic organizations centuries before “modernity”. His ideal type thus cannot yield a clear distinction between bureaucratic and “post”‐bureaucratic organizations, unless “bureaucracy” is flattened into “hierarchy”, and “post”‐bureaucratic into “non‐hierarchical”. But hierarchy cannot be eliminated from complex organizations, and bureaucracy can be re‐theorized to include any non‐contradictory attributes. Therefore, there can be adaptations of bureaucracy, but ex hypothesi there cannot be a “post‐bureaucratic era”.

The paper shows that Weber's ideal type can be re‐theorized to include any “non‐contradictory attributes”.

The purpose of this paper is to use case study evidence to show that post‐bureaucracy is less marked by a discontinuity in surveillance than by its displacement and intensification.

The paper describes the complex changes that occurred at the International Development Research Center, a Canadian public corporation.

Fundamental clash of values is evident. The reform has brought about a “new order” which relies on a centralized model of governance. Moves towards the “post‐bureaucratic organization” have entailed intensified surveillance and produced a new structure of domination.

The paper argues that Anthony Giddens' theories of late modernity and structuration contain elements that explain the emergence of new organizational forms, their continuity and transformation.

According to an extensive and growing literature, we are in the twilight of bureaucracy. The labels applied to the supposed new organizational form include: post‐bureaucratic; post‐modern; post‐hierarchical; and the virtual organisation. The purpose of this paper is to consider the various claims for “epochal” change by evaluating the supporting and contrary evidence.

The paper draws on evidence on the reform of the UK Civil Service over the last few decades to show the intensification of bureaucracy.

The paper takes issue with the “epochalist” visions of sudden transformation which have underpinned much of the comment on post‐bureaucracy, arguing that the concept of post‐bureaucracy is analytically blind to the diversity and complexity of contemporary organizational change.

Locating the debate on post‐bureaucracy in the broader political economy of Neo‐Conservatism reveals an authoritarian dimension which has been absent from most commentaries.

In recent years it has been argued that the widespread adoption of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) presages the “end” of bureaucracy and its replacement by new and more flexible organisational forms. The purpose of this paper is to question contemporary accounts of “the network enterprise” and “the virtual organisation”, arguing that these are founded on a logic which abstracts innovation from its institutional and organisational context.

The paper uses a case study analysis of the British Library to explore the relationship between ICTs and new organisational forms.

The case study evidence suggests that there is a need to go beyond the binary opposition of “bureaucratic” and “post‐bureaucratic” forms. The evidence also shows that the bureaucratic form was associated with the institutional legacies, expertise and practices that are crucial in fostering innovation.

The paper shows that the bureaucratic context offers a more propitious environment for innovation than has been suggested by managerialist accounts of the “post‐bureaucratic organization”.

Modern bureaucracies are under reconstruction, bureaucracy being no longer “modern”; they are becoming “post” bureaucratic. Defining the post‐bureaucratic organization as a hybrid form provides insight into the intrinsic difficulties involved in the refurbishment of large complex organizations. The purpose of this paper is to examine these difficulties empirically.

The paper describes the case of an Australian public sector agency, subject to “corporatization” – a metamorphosis from a strictly public sector outlook to one that was imputedly more commercial. It focuses on the transition from personnel management to strategic HRM in the HR function.

A series of difficulties affected these changes: difficulties in inventing a new identity; differences in perception of that identity; organizational philosophy towards strategic HRM; unsuitability of extent networks; and identity conflicts. Two factors emerge as the core explanation for the difficulties encountered: the “stickiness of identity” and the difficulties associated with network development.

The paper outlines the difficulties experienced in the putative “refurbishment” of a large public sector agency as it made its way to “corporatization”.

To present empirical research on the adoption of workload allocation models (WAMs) within the UK university system and relate these to the broader context of the new public management (NPM).

The paper draws on the historical sociology of the professions to highlight the dilemmas posed by the adoption of WAMs.

University managers and academics are faced with some difficult choices. Managers are faced with a requirement to develop, implement and if necessary challenge a range of new tasks, business processes, projects to be managed and teams to be led. For staff, the choice is to accept the increased workloads or to lobby for increased resources. However, calls for “increased resources” is likely to entail further bureaucratisation. A more transparent and accountable approach to academic work may offer a more viable way forward than that implied by recourse to the fundamentally elitist notions of “collegiality”.

The paper presents new research on WAMs and NPM.