“concertive” control … “represents a key shift in the locus of control from management to the workers themselves, who collaborate to develop the means of their own control. Workers achieve concertive control by reaching a negotiated consensus on how to shape their behavior according to a set of core values, such as the values found in a corporate vision statement. In a sense, concertive control reflects the adoption of a new substantive rationality, a new set of consensual values, by the organization and its members.”

But wait-- there’s more. Here is a link to the Barker article:

Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams
Administrative Science Quarterly, Sept, 1993 by James R. Barker

I feel especially drawn towards Anne Marie’s suggestion that “effort, courage, determination, constant attention, dialogue – and more dialogue” are important, becuase we have to learn how to interact and organize differently if we are to make flatter organizations less oppressive. The issue from Barker’s work, as I remember it, is that it is not the form of control (‘concertive’) but the norms that were enforced using that control. But honestly I’d better go back and read it.

I too have horrible memories of seeing members of teams in high commitment work systems hurt each other as they grappled- without much help from management– to use a form of power (concertive) without understanding what was possible for them to be if they used that power in a more liberatory way. It was really the case of re-inscribing the same oppressions. So, I’m with Jon I. as well as Jon Husband, in calling for organizational change as intentional social change.

Thanks for adding to the conversation– I’m so glad to have you company and to be able to support you, too.
.-= cv´s last blog ..Networks and the Myth that Flatter Organizations are Better =-.

http://blog.social-advantage.com/2010/01/social-networks-and-organisational.html

http://blog.social-advantage.com/2010/01/social-revolution-isnt-hierarchy-to.html
.-= Jon Ingham´s last blog ..The Social Revolution – isn’t hierarchy to networks =-.

This is a great post. Thank you.

You might enjoy Barker, J.A (2003). ‘Tightening The Iron Cage: Concertive Control In Self-Managing Teams’ Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 38, p408 – 437. Ah, just had a quick look at Ezzamel and Willmot – they reference Barker.

It has been a long time since I read the paper. From memory, he shows how a self-managed team created their own behavioural norms and how this resulted in levels of self-imposed control that management could only dream of. I have seen this in practice when researching self-managed teams.

You are right about the myth of network structures. On a personal note, a project I managed years ago almost made me ill. It was a network of universities, trade unions, business organisations, think tanks and consultants. It was rich in cliques, power bases, pre-existing sub-groups, grievances, ambition, inclusion, exclusion etc. By the way, the trade unions and business organisations were as good as gold. No conflict there.

I have come to the conclusion that people will be people. Expecting them to play nice is futile. Some will, some will not. And of the some that will, even they sometimes will not when they have their own agendas to pursue.

I co-facilitate a learning network for IT, FM and HR specialists. We explore issues around the changing workplace and were very fortunate to have someone from Nokia come to speak to us about the Nokia Siemens merger that formed NSN. Our speaker was talking about creating conditions for the emergence of a new culture. He defined culture as “the struggle for shared meaning” and requires effort, courage, determination, constant attention, dialogue – and more dialogue. This is what is needed to bring about significant change.
.-= Anne Marie McEwan´s last blog ..Collaboration By Design =-.