Search results

This paper examines the prospects of developing rational policy processes. The approach taken is to examine two components of policy processes. First, the paper analyses the way in which rationality has been applied to three different models, or modes of public administration: Weberian bureaucracy; market or rational actor political behaviour; and managerialism. The analysis suggests that “rational” approaches to public administration are inherently value‐laden, emphasising norms such as institutional integrity, representation or efficiency. Second, analysis is undertaken of policy implementation which is one phase of the policy process. The paper examines “top‐down”, “bottom‐up”, institutional and statutory‐coherence approaches to policy implementation. Contrasts amongst these competing models of policy implementation reinforce previous findings that there appears to be little prospect of achieving policy rationality because of the inability of the current approaches to policy analysis to enable reconciliation of fundamental normative assumptions underpinning the approaches. The current methods utilised by policy analysts do not appear to be able to provide either the tools or the structures required to achieve instrumental rationality in policy sciences.

Purpose – This chapter contributes to the growing debate on the diffusion of managerialist modes of thinking across third-sector organisations. It offers an analysis into the power dynamics at play in the emergence of hybrid management systems (HMSs) by looking at the management practices in non-profit organisations (NPOs) active in combating HIV/AIDS in South Africa.

Design/methodology/approach – In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with donor organisations and big non-governmental organisations (NGOs) based in the Northern hemisphere, and with managers and team leaders in South African NGOs. Taking a postcolonial perspective, the HMSs resulting from the encounter at the ‘glocal’ interface are investigated.

Findings – The data indicate that the power dynamics shaping the process of hybridisation work through three intertwined circuits of power: the managerialist discourse, the ‘rules of practice’ emanating from that discourse and episodic power relations at the level of interactions.

Research limitations/implications – As is the case with most qualitative research, care must be taken in generalising the findings of this research beyond the organisations participating in this study. At a theoretical level, the implications of this chapter are its contributions to three sets of literature that rarely interact: NPO management, international and cross-cultural management (ICCM) and critical management studies (CMS). At the level of organisational praxis, the findings have potential impact in terms of developing innovative ways of managing NPOs.

Originality/value – The originality and value of this chapter lies in its application of postcolonial theory to understanding hybridisation processes shaping management ideas and practices in South African NPOs.

The past few years have seen a swelling of interest in explicitly Christian approaches to business ethics. The time is ripe, it would seem, to map the diversity of approaches within what I term “Christian business ethics.”¹ Here I will frame the diversity of approaches as answers to the distinctive kind of question which religiously minded ethicists have brought to the terrain of business. I will not use theological or religious terms or categories, since such language is not likely to be of interest to philosophers and social scientists. Drawing up this map has been rendered easier by the fact that Christian business ethicists themselves have used a language which is readily accessible to listeners outside their traditions.

To examine control and accountability in an expressive organisation.

The paper was based upon a longitudinal case study of events in the Church of England from 1994 to 2001 and was based on documents, debates in the governing body, conversations and interviews and participants' observation.

As a response to a financial crisis a group of financiers from within the Evangelical theological tradition (which places stress on headship and control) proposed the creation of a new church governance body (a national council) with strongly integrated central control and severely diminished conciliar participation. This group described the complex church organisations and structures (disparagingly) as “a cats cradle of autonomous and semi autonomous organizations”. This conflicted with the values of the other covenant traditions (Anglo‐Catholic and Liberal). The new body was created, but the proposed centralised control was unraveled, the existing constitution and governance was maintained, the “cats cradle” was enriched within the ground metaphor of autonomy. The case shows how the loosely coupled nature of this expressive institution with its multiple theological (value and belief) stances and multiple organisations, relationships and accountabilities was almost impervious to the attempt to shift them into an ordered and controlled hierarchy.

The great complexity of an ancient Church constrains the researcher to a limited account.

Change in expressive organisations happens by emergent negotiation and cannot be directed because the various value positions infuse everything.

The conception of control and accountability as being constructed and reconstructed in the interplay of the constructs of covenant, constitution and contract. This theorising may have a wider application both to expressive, public institutions and private organisations.

The purpose of this study is to develop a multi-level and politically informed perspective on organizational learning and change based on the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) in order to contribute to a less managerialist and more multi-voiced understanding of change. The authors aim for a better understanding of the links between expansive learning, contradictions in and of activity systems and episodic and systemic power.

The authors develop a framework on expansive learning, integrating the concept of faces of power. The framework is applied to a case study.

The authors show productive and restrictive effects of episodic and systemic power for dealing with contradictions in expansive learning and organizational change. The productive role of change critics and non-managerial actors is shown.

The case study is illustrative and findings need to be validated and expanded through more detailed empirical investigations. Future studies should particularly investigate how patterns of power could itself become the object of expansive learning.

The framework fosters an understanding of organizational change as multi-voiced, decentralized and driven by contradictions. Emancipation of actors and protected social spaces are essential for unfolding the productive potential of multi-voicedness against the backdrop of asymmetric power relations in organizations.

The authors step back from a managerialist perspective on organizational change by developing a politically informed, activity theoretic perspective on learning systems. The paper contributes to a better understanding of contradictions, related multi-voicedness and effects of episodic/systemic power in expansive learning and change.

To understand the factors encouraging growth in two social enterprises involved in recycling based in London, UK, and how these can be interpreted and understood in terms of “managerialist” concepts.

The study aimed to understand how particular aspects of social enterprise literature relate to practice on the ground, and to gain a clearer picture of the diversity, complexity and contested ideas that coexist within the social enterprise sector. Focuses on the experience of two social enterprises based in London: ReBoot, a project set up by Bootstrap Enterprises, a social enterprise based in Hackney for the recycling of computers donated from individuals and organizations; and Green‐Works, a social enterprise for preventing large volumes of office furniture from going to landfill. Explains that the research comprised two parts: an extensive literature review to provide background theory and context; and the use of semi‐structured interviews with the selected organizations to gain qualitative data for comparison.

The results provided broad indications relating to the ideas and conflicts existing within and between social enterprises across such broad themes as “growth”, public and private origins, market orientation and long‐term sustainability. Concludes that the research highlights the diversity of social enterprises in terms of their objectives, structures, operations and long‐term visions, while demonstrating the great differences between the two enterprises despite their seeming similarity on the surface.

Challenges the frequently over‐simplified generalizations and assumptions that are applied to social enterprises.

The purpose of this paper is to report and reflect on a decade‐long action experiment to devise a form of business education for sustainability that helps managers act as “pro‐sustainability” agents of change. It offers one example of practice in this evolving field, for scholarly scrutiny and discussion.

The paper draws on action research principles, which engage theory with practice, and action with reflection. It is written as a reflective account of the author's experience.

This educational programme for managers locates itself as a form of business education for sustainability whilst simultaneously acknowledging that the managerialist assumptions underpinning this aspiration are part of the problem that change for sustainability needs to address. This raises challenges both for the tutor team and participants. Tentative conclusions are reached about the paradoxical nature of educational practice in this contested space, in the light of current trends in higher education.

The paper explores an innovative educational experiment in which the questions raised have wider significance for how managers are helped to bring about pro‐sustainability change.

This essay examines the broad thesis of organizational learning theorist Chris Argyris in terms of communicative action, and finds his critical understanding of Model I and the emancipatory potential embedded in double‐loop learning consistent with prominent themes in critical organization study.

This paper sets out to explore the gendered nature of the MBA and the benefits men and women gain from the course. In so doing it aims to highlight a relationship between the masculinity of the MBA and the “un‐development” of men.

The paper draws on secondary data and critiques the masculinity of the MBA pedagogy.

Examining outcomes from the MBA, evidence suggests that while men may achieve greater progress in terms of career development and pay, it is women who are more likely to undergo “transformational” change.

Drawing on work from critical management education (CME) and on models of learning, this paper argues for the need to “feminise” the MBA, where feminisation is used in a critical context to include a challenge to rather than rejection of dominant discourses. This goes some way to address the charge that, while CME has highlighted some of the programme's moral and political foundations, it has failed to recognise the gendered implications of the MBA.

This paper argues that failing to grasp thoroughly the influence of power on the strategy‐making process can severely inhibit the potential of strategy making as a vehicle of organizational learning.

First the organizational learning perspective on strategic management is sketched and an attempt is made to show how it takes the social aspects of organizing more seriously than earlier perspectives on strategy. It is also noted how this iteration responds or at least has the potential to respond to some of the critiques directed at earlier thinking on strategy from critical management studies (CMS). Then CMS's critique of organizational learning theories is noted and the critiques to re‐conceptualize blockages to learning and knowledge creation are built on.

An attempt has been made to show that, as in earlier perspectives on strategy, there is still insufficient attention being paid to the role of power in strategic change. This places severe limitations on strategic learning that is possible.

Concludes by joining other writers in calling for a less managerialist research in strategy.