‘Bureaucracy‐lite’ and Continuities in Managerial Work

Abstract

This paper questions three frequently asserted, interrelated claims about developments in management: that centralized, regulated bureaucratic organizations characterized by hierarchy and rules are inevitably giving way to decentralized and empowered post‐bureaucratic organizations characterized by internal networks and an internal market; that, as a consequence, the traditional managerial role of command and control is being superseded by one of facilitation and coordination; and that, in turn, managerial work as routine administration of work processes is being supplanted by the ‘new managerial work’ of non‐routine leadership and entrepreneurship. It is argued that these claims often rest on caricatures of bureaucracy and network organization and are neither new nor well supported by evidence. Against these claims, the paper adduces case‐study evidence which shows that, despite claims about ‘decentralization’ and ‘empowerment’, organizational change may entail not a radical shift to network organization, but more limited change to a different form of bureaucracy in which hierarchy and rules have been retained but in an attenuated and sharper form –‘bureaucracy‐lite’. Consequently, managerial roles continue to be defined in terms of individual responsibility and vertical accountability for an organizational sub‐unit, and managerial work continues to be preoccupied with monitoring and maintaining work processes, routine direction and control of staff and processing information in order to deal with the ambiguities inherent in the dimensions of managerial ‘responsibility’.

‘No Place to Hide’? The Realities of Leadership in UK Supermarkets

“…Bureaucratic forms of control are still going strong (Power 1997, Hales 2002, Protherough and Pick 2002 and old-fashioned supervision rather than inspirational leadership is at the heart of most jobs (Delbridge andLowe 1997, Hales 2005). Kelly (2008), in his analysis of the nature of leadership and the various discourses that surround it, has argued that leadership as a practice is locally defined and here we propose one example of such local definition:.…”

Not lost in translation: Managerial career narratives and the construction of protean identities

“…So if I am not doing this, this, and In dynamic business environments, organizations are dependent on managers at all hierarchical levels as drivers of strategic adaptability (e.g., Mollick, 2012;Wooldridge et al 2008). However, many studies paint an especially vulnerable and dire picture of managerial professionals, such as middle managers, who face a number of pressures and insecurities with regard to their managerial roles and career development (Accenture, 2007;Hales, 2002;Hassard et al, 2012;Prins et al, 2015;Sims, 2003;Watson, 1994Watson, /2001. As a consequence, organizations risk losing key talent if professionals, for example, seek alternative ways to obtain a satisfying career and balanced work life (Biese, 2017;Feldman and Ng, 2007;Fraher and Gabriel, 2014).…”

Cross-Country Estimates of Employment and Investment in Organisational Capital: A Task-Based Methodology Using the PIAAC Database

“…Greenan, 2012); and on "new" organisation features, such as flat hierarchy, empowered workers, self-governing teams, use of temporary structures and lateral communications enabled by the adoption of ICTs (see, e.g. van Alstyne, 1997;Birkinshaw and Hagstrom, 2000;and Hales, 2002).…”