Johannes Rüegg-Stürm

Net Economy — Die Bedeutung der Gestaltung von Beziehungskonfigurationen

Der vorliegende Beitrag versucht, die Triebkrafte der Veranderungen in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft zu systematisieren. Das Konzept der Netzokonomie (Net Economy) wird operationalisiert. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird ein erster Handlungsrahmen fur die Herausforderungen des kommenden Jahrzehntes, das Management von Beziehungen, geboten. Technologie und Deregulierung fuhren zu einer Transformation von Unternehmen und Branchen, die Standorten oder gesellschaftlichen Institutionen neue Funktionen zuweist. In der Wirtschaft werden Transaktions- und Leistungssysteme tiefgreifend verandert. Diese Transformation fuhrt zur Bildung neuer Netzwerke in der Wirtschaft beispielsweise in der Form von virtuellen Unternehmen und zu neuen Beziehungskonfigurationen wie dem Phanomen der Coopetition. Fur Individuen und Unternehmen heist die Herausforderung der Zukunft, mehr Beziehungen zu managen. Klare moralische Grundlagen, Vertrauensbildung, Selektion und instrumentelle Effizienz sind gefragt. Beziehungsmanagement ist Treiber und Inhalt der Entwicklung neuer Geschaftsmodelle.

From reality to vision--from vision to reality--an essay on vision as medium for fundamental knowledge transfer

Objective and Procedure Today the problem of convincing, solid visions has caught considerable attention. When corporations face unstable situations for internal or external reasons, a vision is expected to encourage entrepreneurial behavior and to cause an increase in flexibility and integration. Visions the wonder drug for mastering the transition to the next millennium? Taken literally, vision delineates a certain perspective of the world, a perspective of a future desired reality. So visions move in the area of tension between utopia and a continuation of the present track that is devoid of any fantasy. Visions bridge the gap between “the” actual and a future desired reality. But what is reality? How does a “perspective of the world” come into existence within a corporation? If we now try to examine the importance of a vision from the point of view of the management of knowledge, the “cognitive dialectics” between “the” actual and a future desired reality assume decisive importance. A commonly shared vision can be seen from this perspective as a highly condensed medium which transfers the current organizational knowledge* of the corporation into a future one. The epistemological considerations of radical constructivism claim that reality is to be understood as a process. Reality is being continuously constructed within a socially interactive “process of negotiations”. These basic considerations (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Watzlawick, 1981b; Froschauer and Lueger, 1992) slowly enter the theory of management after having been discussed in the social sciences for some time (Weick, 1979; Daft and Weick, 1984; Probst, 1987; Kirsch, 1992; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Fundamental Knowledge Transfer

Lean Hospital – «Toolbox» oder Mobilisierung von Reflexivität?

Lean Hospital im Spital als Werkzeugkasten zur Optimierung der Wertschopfung? In diesem Beitrag skizzieren wir die Kerngedanken von Lean Hospital und loten zwei Voraussetzungen fur seine Verankerung in einem Spital aus. Unsere Uberlegungen beruhen auf einer langfristig angelegten empirischen Fallstudie zur Einfuhrung von Lean Hospital in einem Schweizer Zentrumsspital. Eine wesentliche Erkenntnis daraus lautet, Lean Hospital als Entwicklungsprozess eines Repertoires von reflexiven Gestaltungspraktiken zu verstehen. Als solcher dient Lean Hospital dazu, die eingespielten Ablaufe im Behandlungsalltag gemeinsam kritisch-konstruktiv zu hinterfragen – ausgerichtet auf die Kernwertschopfung im Spital: die Patientenprozesse.

Constructivist paradigms: implications for strategy-as-practice research

The practice turn in strategy research (Johnson, Melin and Whittington 2003; Johnson et al. 2007; Golsorkhi et al. 2010; Vaara and Whittington 2012) implies an explicit reconsideration of paradigmatic premises (Tsoukas and Knudsen 2002; Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Vaara and Whittington 2012). The strategy-as-practice research programme challenges concepts of strategy that have long been taken for granted, uncovering the complexities of the ‘social fabric’ of strategy-making (Latour 1996). Furthermore, it undermines the apparently self-evident premises of strategy research and its relation to strategy-making by referring to various constructivist perspectives, theories and methodologies. Looking at the main contributions to strategy-as-practice research of the last few years, a handful of patterns seem dominant. One can distinguish between three dimensions (Johnson et al. 2007; Orlikowski in this volume). On an empirical level (‘phenomenon’), strategy-making is seen as involving multiple construction processes and activities and multiple actors inside and outside the organization, distributed across multiple organizational layers (Johnson, Melin and Whittington 2003; Jarzabkowski and Spee 2009). While strategies and strategy processes are traditionally treated as defined entities, the strategy-as-practice research programme emphasizes their constructedness, and thus their heterogeneity, processuality and fragility. On a theoretical level (‘perspectives’), the study of strategy-making requires approaches that provide conceptual cover for this heterogeneous mesh of processes, activities and actors, as well as the fact of their situatedness and embeddedness. It is argued that a focus on the practice of strategy-making therefore implies a discussion of the underlying action theories (Grand and MacLean 2007; Jarzabkowski 2004; Tsoukas and Knudsen 2002) and, specifically, theories of practice (Schatzki, Knorr Cetina and von Savigny 2001). On a philosophical level (‘philosophies’), this emphasis on strategy-making as social practice requires a consideration of scientific research itself from the vantage point of practice (Knorr Cetina 2002; Tsoukas 2005). How do scientific research itself and particular research practices contribute to the construction of the field of strategy, both scientifically and organizationally (Knights and Morgan 1991)?

Sinn in der Management-Praxis

Management muss – so die gangige Erwartung – der Steuerung und Kontrolle komplexer Organisationen dienlich sein. Sinn hingegen steht eigenartigerweise dieser Steuerbarkeit entgegen – denn Sinnprozesse sind immer durch ein kreatives, innovatives und bisweilen auch kritisches Moment gekennzeichnet, durch „Eigensinn“. Management als reflexive Gestaltungspraxis steht in dieser Spannung: Auf der einen Seite sind die Entstehung und Weiterentwicklung heutiger Organisationen in grundlegender Weise auf tragfahige Prozesse einer gemeinsamen Sinnkonstitution angewiesen. Auf der anderen Seite konnen solche Prozesse auch irritierend und storend wirken, weil sie Bestehendes in Frage stellen oder neu bewerten. In diesem Essay wird zu zeigen versucht, wie am Beispiel der vierten Generation des St. Galler Management-Modells Prozesse der Sinnkonstitution in ein komplexitatsgerechtes Verstandnis von Organisation und Management integriert werden konnen – ohne aber zu suggerieren, dass auf diese Weise der verlorengegangene Mythos der heroischen Steuerbarkeit sozialer Systeme zuruckgewonnen werden konnte.

Rationality — The Notion, Its Genesis and Its Effects

Rationality is a term that is used for different matters in different disciplines. This makes its use difficult because such differing terminological applications are apt to result in confusion and misunderstandings. However, precisely this is a typical feature of the interplay between different system worlds and their own “codes”, that is, their own specialised languages with their respective terms and connotations.

Multirationality and Pluralistic Organisations

Multirationality means for management that, in one single organisation, several rationalities simultaneously make a permanent impact on a decision-making situation that should be brought to fruition for the organisation. Multiple rationalities derive from a pluralist environment which simultaneously imposes different rational expectations on the organisation. The complexity of the environment is implanted in the organisation by actors representing the different rationalities, which also increases the complexity of the organisation itself.

Strategies for Dealing with Multiple Rationalities

In this chapter, we focus on those people in an organisation who have to ensure that the organisation retains its ability to make decisions and to act: the management. Managing pluralistic organisations means to be regularly confronted with the challenge of having to deal productively with different rationalities within the organisation. Various ways can be developed to deal with this challenge. We will discuss possible management strategies along these lines in conceptual terms. We will show that there are many possibilities of reacting to a multirational context. There is no “royal road” — depending on the situation, greatly differing strategies can be appropriate to an organisation.

Consequences for Practice and Science

Appropriately, comments on multirational management are often subject to the same complexity as multirational management itself. It is impossible to provide management in pluralistic contexts with simple “linear” recommendations. However, multirational management offers a wide and fertile field for management research and practice.

Modes of Firm Development: Organisational Change

These days, executives often lament the inevitability of change, yet, paradoxically, change is in fact a prerequisite for stability, as the famous cybernetic expert Ross Ashby (1956/1970) had already clearly demonstrated years ago with the example of riding in a straight line on a bicycle. He showed that fixing the handlebars of a bicycle would always quickly result in the cyclists falling, because he would be prevented from adjusting his bicycle to the large or small bumps along the way.