Interfaces of control. Technocratic and socio-ideological control in a global management consultancy firm

« Ni un homme, ni une femme, mais un consultant. » Régimes de genre dans l’espace du conseil en management

“…Par ailleurs, les principes « up or out » s'inscrivent au sein d'un système de contrôle plus large -contrôle du projet (temps passé et budget), contrôle informel par le groupe des partners ou associés sur les marges financières des missions, etc. -l'ensemble structurant fortement la socialisation professionnelle (Alvesson, Kärreman, 2004).…”

Virtuelle Auslandsentsendungen

“…The function of the headquarters in this context is to establish the framework for decentralized decision-making and to guarantee that the individual behavior of subsidiaries contributes to the overall objectives of the MNC. In contrast, hierarchical control is characterized by centralized decision-making and by directly influencing subsidiary behavior through technocratic mechanisms such as planning and formalization (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2004) or through parent-country expatriations (e.g., Tan & Mahoney, 2002). …”

What Difference Does It Make?

“…With John being able to convince the CEO that HR and Communications should be merged, it automatically brought about a change in work routines. The ideals of the ideal discourse has made an impact on the organisational setup, and along these lines Alvesson and Kärreman (2004) suggests that "people's ideas and norms [can] lead to the construction of rules enacted in a bureaucratic way" (p. 427). By this, they point to how an idea may turn into structures creating rules for behaviour, which we argue is the case with the ideal discourse.…”

“…By this, they point to how an idea may turn into structures creating rules for behaviour, which we argue is the case with the ideal discourse. This kind of control can be understood as one that explicitly targets employees' behaviour which Alvesson and Kärreman (2004) describes as a technocratic management control form. With this, management employ various work standards for procedures, outputs and skills, along with direct supervision and mutual adjustment to make sure tasks are coordinated (Ibid.).…”

“…In relation to this, Alvesson and Kärreman (2004) notes that managers often advance values and ideals because they themselves really believe in them or because they believe the company will benefit from the employees believing in them. In this case, we suggest that it is a combination of both; John seems to be fully committed to these values, probably because he considers himself the inventor, and he also believes these ideals are in the interest of CPG.…”