Asymmetries of responsibility in self-managing organization: Authoring shared and hierarchical control

IF 2.2 3区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT Leadership Pub Date : 2024-06-21 DOI:10.1177/17427150241264050
Joona Koistinen, Johanna Vuori
{"title":"Asymmetries of responsibility in self-managing organization: Authoring shared and hierarchical control","authors":"Joona Koistinen, Johanna Vuori","doi":"10.1177/17427150241264050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We studied change initiatives towards self-managing organization in five companies, focusing on changes in leader-follower relations. Our discursive analysis based on interviews of 18 middle-managers and 38 employees suggests that organizational members identify with different types of responsibilities depending on their organizational position. We grouped these responsibilities into four orientations – organizational, institutional, coordination, and individual/work – that involve both synergistic and antagonistic elements, reflecting a plurality of interests and organizational concerns. When the authority relations between ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ were weakened in the case organizations, these asymmetries of responsibility pushed the authoring of organizational activities into divergent trajectories. Sometimes this divergence was perceived by managers as conflicting with the organizational or institutional responsibilities they identified with. Managers controlled this tension both by influencing their subordinates’ authoring normatively and by resorting to hierarchical control practices in situations and authoring arenas perceived as critical. This resulted in hybrid arrangements including both shared and hierarchical forms of control. Eventually, one of the companies remained in and another one reintroduced conventional hierarchical structures. Accordingly, we discuss our reservations regarding the emancipatory enthusiasm around shared forms of control, as the shared mode of control seems to ‘work’ as long as employee authoring is contained within managerial power and interests.","PeriodicalId":47422,"journal":{"name":"Leadership","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leadership","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150241264050","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We studied change initiatives towards self-managing organization in five companies, focusing on changes in leader-follower relations. Our discursive analysis based on interviews of 18 middle-managers and 38 employees suggests that organizational members identify with different types of responsibilities depending on their organizational position. We grouped these responsibilities into four orientations – organizational, institutional, coordination, and individual/work – that involve both synergistic and antagonistic elements, reflecting a plurality of interests and organizational concerns. When the authority relations between ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ were weakened in the case organizations, these asymmetries of responsibility pushed the authoring of organizational activities into divergent trajectories. Sometimes this divergence was perceived by managers as conflicting with the organizational or institutional responsibilities they identified with. Managers controlled this tension both by influencing their subordinates’ authoring normatively and by resorting to hierarchical control practices in situations and authoring arenas perceived as critical. This resulted in hybrid arrangements including both shared and hierarchical forms of control. Eventually, one of the companies remained in and another one reintroduced conventional hierarchical structures. Accordingly, we discuss our reservations regarding the emancipatory enthusiasm around shared forms of control, as the shared mode of control seems to ‘work’ as long as employee authoring is contained within managerial power and interests.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自我管理组织中的责任不对称:授权共享和分级控制
我们研究了五家公司为实现自我管理而采取的变革举措,重点关注领导者与追随者关系的变化。我们根据对 18 名中层管理人员和 38 名员工的访谈进行了辨证分析,结果表明,组织成员根据其组织职位的不同,会承担不同类型的责任。我们将这些责任归纳为组织、制度、协调和个人/工作四种取向,其中既有协同要素,也有对立要素,反映了利益和组织关注的多元化。在案例组织中,当 "领导者 "和 "追随者 "之间的权力关系被削弱时,这些责任的不对称将组织活动的制定推向了不同的轨道。有时,管理者认为这种分歧与他们所认同的组织或机构责任相冲突。管理者既要通过影响下属的规范创作来控制这种紧张关系,又要通过在被视为关键的情况和创作领域采用等级控制做法来控制这种紧张关系。这就形成了包括共同控制和等级控制两种形式的混合安排。最后,其中一家公司仍然保留了传统的等级结构,另一家公司则重新采用了传统的等级结构。因此,我们对围绕共享控制形式的解放热情持保留意见,因为只要员工的创作被限制在管理权力和利益范围内,共享控制模式似乎就 "行得通"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Leadership
Leadership MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
23.50%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Leadership is an international peer-reviewed journal that publishes the highest quality original research on leadership. Leadership is designed to provide an ongoing forum for academic researchers to exchange information, insights and knowledge on both theoretical development and empirical research on leadership. It will publish original, high-quality articles that contribute to the advancement of the field of leadership studies.
期刊最新文献
Can a leader be authentic and cruel? What happens when a vice becomes a virtue When atypical leaders fail to deliver allyship for diversity: The case of an unregulated neoliberal national context Rhetoric as resistance leadership in the ‘buen vivir’ global movement: Framing on social media collective utopias inspired by nature to challenge the status quo Bad leadership - Why we steer clear The leaderlessness conundrum: Politics and anti-politics in global justice movements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1