Thomas Diefenbach

The managerialistic ideology of organisational change management

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the reasons and circumstances why strategic change initiatives based on new public management and managerialism go wrong. In particular, how such change initiatives are being justified, communicated, perceived, and implemented within organisational discourses and politics. It reveals personal and group interests behind ideologies, and what change management of this type is really about.Design/methodology/approach – A strategic change initiative at a large Western‐European university (“International University” – IU) had been investigated between 2004 and 2005 based on qualitative empirical research. Data were gained primarily through semi‐structured in‐depths interviews with IUs senior managers. The findings were triangulated by referring to internal documents and academic literature.Findings – The case study reveals a whole set of typical characteristics of managerialistic change management approach and how it is communicated. The paper provid...

Formal and Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of Organization

This paper addresses the paradox that despite all organizational change towards flatter and postmodern organizations, hierarchical order is quite persistent. We develop a differentiated understanding of hierarchy as either formal or informal and apply this analytical framework to several types of organization. The analysis reveals that hierarchy is much more widespread than thought; in particular, postmodern, representative democratic and network organizations are much less ‘alternative’ and ‘hierarchy-free’ than their labels and common understanding may suggest. The main argument is that the persistence of hierarchy in different types of organization can be explained by different dynamic relationships between formal and informal hierarchy.

Getting Organizational Change Right in Public Services: The Case of European Higher Education

Abstract The purpose of this article is to instigate further debate on why organizational change is currently being initiated and how it is being managed in European Higher Education. It provides suggestions on how to avoid major downsides that come with managerialism and how to enable managers and academics in the sector to concentrate on what Higher Education should be all about: to contribute to the further development of society through knowledge generation and transfer. The article is based on observations of the current developments triggered by the rise of the audit culture and adoption of managerialism. It suggests that not all change currently initiated in Higher Education is required – or indeed in the best interest of the sector or wider society – but rather, based on personal interests resulting in less efficiency and a waste of resources. Furthermore, the article argues that the audit culture and managerialism have created an environment that encourages opportunistic behaviour such as cronyism, rent-seeking and the rise of organizational psychopaths. This development will arguably not only lead to a waste of resources, change for the sake of change, further centralization, formalization and bureaucratization but, also, to a disheartened and exploited workforce, and political and short-term decision-making. The article proposes ways of managing organizational change in Higher Education successfully by providing a new conceptual change management model and a decision-makers change manifesto.

Relationally Reflexive Practice A Generative Approach to Theory Development in Qualitative Research

In this article we explain how the development of new organization theory faces several mutually reinforcing problems, which collectively suppress generative debate and the creation of new and alternative theories. We argue that to overcome these problems, researchers should adopt relationally reflexive practices. This does not lead to an alternative method but instead informs how methods are applied. Specifically, we advocate a stance toward the application of qualitative methods that legitimizes insights from the situated life-with-others of the researcher. We argue that this stance can improve our abilities for generative theorizing in the field of management and organization studies.

Intangible resources: a categorial system of knowledge and other intangible assets

– There are several strands that cope with particular intangible resources, such as intangible assets, intellectual, human, and organisational capital, data and information, knowledge and capabilities. However, until now there have been no attempts to define and identify all intangible resources systematically in one framework. The purpose of this paper is to show how an exhaustive and exclusive categorial system of all intangible resources can be generated., – Following the idea of comparative analyses by grounded theory, it will be referred to relevant approaches which can be defined in academic literature. It is investigated how types of intangible resources, that share common attributes, can be grouped together, which categories emerge, and how these categories can be defined. This gradually leads to the creation of the whole categorial system based on empirical inductionism. At the same time, the categorial system is created based on logical deductionism. Having defined intangible resources as the objects of reasoning and by which leading principles will be looked at, the class of intangible resources will be broken down into categories or sub‐classes with the help of precisely formulated attributes., – Generation of a comprehensive, consistent, and complete categorial system of all possible types of intangible assets., – Solely a theoretical paper. Although empirical examples are provided it might be interesting to demonstrate the application of this categorial system., – With such a categorial system we are in the position to identify and locate the uncountable number of “real world” types of intangible resources more precisely and efficiently., – With such an attempt it may become clearer how to cope with different types of intangible resources, how to gather, create, use, share and develop them more appropriately.

Hierarchy and Organisation : Toward a General Theory of Hierarchical Social Systems

Most people take the conditions they work and live in as a given, believing it to be normal that societies are stratified and that organisations are hierarchical. Many even think that this is the way it should be - and are neither willing nor able to think that it could be otherwise. This book raises the awareness of hierarchy, its complexity and longevity. It focuses on a single but fundamental problem of social systems such as dyads, groups, organisations and whole societies: Why and how does hierarchical social order persist over time? In order to investigate the question, author Thomas Diefenbach develops a general theory of the persistence of hierarchical social order. This theory interrogates the problem of the persistence of hierarchical social order from very different angles, in multi-dimensional and interdisciplinary ways. Even more crucially, it traces the very causes of the phenomenon, the reasons and interests behind hierarchy as well as the various mechanisms which keep it going. This is the first time such a theory is attempted. With the help of the theory developed in this book, it is possible to interrogate systematically, comprehensively and in detail how mindsets and behaviours as well as societal and organisational structures enable the continuation of hierarchy

Bureaucracy and Hierarchy – what Else!?

Hierarchy and bureaucracy have been more or less welcomed companions of human civilisation from the very beginning. In almost every culture and epoch, ruling elites and followers, superiors and subordinates can be identified. Hierarchy and bureaucracy are quite flexible, adaptable and they are fairly persistent – but why could, or even should we see this as a problem? This introduction will first provide a brief history of no change, followed by the second section where the advantages and disadvantages and the contested terrain of hierarchy are elaborated in some length. The discussion focuses on three areas: the functional, social and ethical qualities of hierarchy. In the final section, the chapters of this volume will be briefly introduced. The chapters are grouped into three sections: (I) Fundamentals and historical accounts of bureaucracy, (II) Organisational, cultural and socio-psychological aspects of hierarchy and (III) Alternative views on, and alternatives to hierarchy.

Zur Möglichkeit der Deduktion des Wirtschaftlichkeits- und Gewinnmaximierungsprinzips aus dem Rationalprinzip

In den Wirtschaftswissenschaften ist man gerade in ihrem traditionellen Kern bemuht, ihr Gebiet durch strenge Annahmen bzw. Axiomatisierung moglichst eindeutig festzulegen und abzugrenzen. Grundlegende Bedeutung kommt dabei dem Wirtschaftlichkeits- und Gewinnmaximierungsprinzip zu. Es kann jedoch gezeigt werden, dass ihre Begrundung in Form einer Deduktion aus dem Rationalprinzip wissenschaftstheoretisch alles andere als uberzeugend ist. Insbesondere das Gewinnmaximierungsprinzip basiert auf historischen sowie gesellschaftspolitischen Aspekten und ist vornehmlich normativer Natur.

Book Review: Managerialism: A Critique of an Ideology:

it speaks to a lack of regionally specific studies within Africa. Rather than critiquing the homogenous representation of Africa as a whole in the future, postcolonial organization scholars would do well to address how communities and peoples differ, as part of disrupting that representation. Second, the book overall seems to offer a fractured—and sometimes contradictory—idea of postcolonialism. Prasad begins the book by stating that postcolonial theory has a ‘distinctively radical edge’ (p. 14), but in some chapters this radicalness does not come through. Particularly, Sullivan’s chapter on how the Australian government should relate to Aboriginal peoples seems to work from a ‘post-colonial’—as a temporal marker—rather than ‘postcolonial’ perspective. For instance, although Sullivan claims that ‘[i]nstitutions for the delivery of services and development programs should adhere to universal standards of good management first and foremost’ (p. 96), other authors argue that ‘formulaic and standardized development models deny the reality of poor people’s lives and delink the working of local organizations from their complexity and specificity’ (Nuijten, p. 185). For most postcolonial scholars, ‘universal’ concepts are generally problematic. Although contradiction is an inherent part of hybridity, and thus postcolonial work, the question remains: In order to maintain its ‘distinctively radical edge’ (p. 14), how critical does postcolonial work need to be? This question ties into a third lacunae left in the wake of this volume: the absence of chapters specifically focused on theory-building. All of the studies included, other than the introduction, are empirical or critique-based. Even beyond the book—with the exception of Prasad and Prasad (2003)—little work has specifically been done to theoretically examine what organization studies can augment or challenge in postcolonial theory writ large, and what postcolonial theory can augment or challenge in organizational theory. Although this may seem like a sizeable gap, it points to the necessity of further postcolonial work in critical organization studies. And for any scholar beginning or continuing to do such work, Against the Grain: Advances in Postcolonial Organization Studies provides a theoretically inspiring, methodologically varied and thematically intriguing place from which to start.