The Return of the Machine Bureaucracy? - Management Control in the Work Settings of Professionals

Knowledge-intensive firms are frequently believed to operate under conditions that invalidate industrial-bureaucratic forms of managerial control. The nature of work, the professionalism of the workers makes traditional organizational structures and managerial techniques archaic and inefficient. However, empirical material from recent studies in two major knowledge-intensive firms indicates that traditional managerial forms of control have maintained and even reclaimed a seemingly vital space in organizational practice. The two cases belong to different branches, thus possibly prefiguring an emergent trend toward the industrialization of at least parts of knowledge work, involving standardization of tasks and methods of working, reinforcing the exchangeability of individuals and units, and increased efforts to manage by numbers and other criteria from the past.

[1]  Tim Morris,et al.  Organisation and expertise: An exploration of knowledge bases and the management of accounting , 1998 .

[2]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  Introducing T-shaped managers. Knowledge management's next generation. , 2001, Harvard business review.

[3]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage , 1998 .

[4]  G. Kunda.  Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation , 1993 .

[5]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  What's your strategy for managing knowledge? , 1999, Harvard business review.

[6]  David Courpasson,et al.  Managerial Strategies of Domination. Power in Soft Bureaucracies , 2000 .

[7]  Bente R. Løwendahl,et al.  Strategic Management of Professional Service Firms , 1997 .

[8]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[9]  W. Starbuck.  Learning by Knowledge-Intensive Firms , 1992 .

[10]  R. Greenwood,et al.  “P2-Form” Strategic Management: Corporate Practices in Professional Partnerships , 1990 .

[11]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and environment , 1967 .

[12]  P. Bierly,et al.  Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry , 1996 .

[13]  William H. Starbuck,et al.  Keeping a Butterfly and an Elephant in a House of Cards: The Elements of Exceptional Success , 1993 .

[14]  S. Frenkel.  Management of Knowledge-Intensive Companies , 1996 .

[15]  Alan L. Wilkins,et al.  Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship between Culture and Organizational Performance. , 1983 .

[16]  J. Brown,et al.  Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing , 1999 .

[17]  Paul Thompson,et al.  Hands, Hearts and Minds: Changing Work and Workers at the End of the Century , 1998 .

[18]  M. Fischetti.  Working knowledge. , 2003, Scientific American.

[19]  M. Alvesson.  Knowledge Work: Ambiguity, Image and Identity , 2001 .

[20]  Jean E. Wallace.  Organizational and Professional Commitment in Professional and Nonprofessional Organizations , 1995 .

[21]  R. Kanter.  The Change Masters , 1983 .

[22]  M. Cavell.  Knowledge and value , 1985 .

[23]  J. Spender.  Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm , 1996 .

[24]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations , 1983 .

[25]  Stanley Deetz,et al.  Transforming Communication, Transforming Business: Building Responsive and Responsible Workplaces , 1994 .

[26]  Ann Taket,et al.  Doing Critical Management Research , 2001, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[27]  Royston Greenwood,et al.  CHANGE IN AN AUTONOMOUS PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION , 1991 .

[28]  R. E. Miles,et al.  Organizing in the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form , 1997 .

[29]  P. Senge.  The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations , 2003 .

[30]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Ambiguity and choice in organizations , 1976 .

[31]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Covert leadership: notes on managing professionals. Knowledge workers respond to inspiration, not supervision. , 1998, Harvard business review.