Life endangers health – this saying immediately gets to the point of what is so important for (economic) organisations, entrepreneurs and managers: There are no actions which don’t (could not) cause damage or don’t contain (could not contain) disadvantages. The utilisation of freedom (=making decisions) also harbours dangers for others as well as oneself. Freedom …
The distinction between the risk-taking decision-makers and the danger-carrying affected parties enables one to understand organisations as places in which conflicts of interest must be processed. All positions, including those of the head of a hierarchy, are always both, decision-makers and affected parties. If everyone is affected by the decisions made elsewhere in the organisation, …
Control carries different danger potentials, which are also well-documented in organisational research. Complex conditions promote these dangers. Giving a name to these dangers must not be seen as criticism of control, quite the opposite: only those who know the dangers of an instrument, can handle it appropriately! Five particularly important aspects are listed here: • …
Nils Brunsson focused his research particularly on that which N. Luhmann once called ‘The poetry of reform’. He examined the dramaturgy of change projects in organisations. Why is after the reform always before the reform? Why do reform projects (nowadays called ‘change projects’) so rarely reach their goal, or are replaced by activities, which then …
One of the most important findings, from a guiding process orientated view of organisations, consists of the significance of communication patterns, which form at the functional, procedural or project/team-based interfaces. Often, where and how structural conflicts are processed is not so purposefully and consciously decided within organisations. Normally the hierarchy (board meeting) is called upon …
It was the two French sociologists who focused the attention on how power in organisations is experienced beyond hierarchy. They clear up the myth that it is the head of hierarchy who, by means of instruction, gets that which he desires. In particular, it is informal processes which enable one to observe where influence lies, …
One of the requirements for trust in dealing with social complexity is that it may also be controlled. In that instance in which areas of a social system shield (or can shield) themselves against control, trust becomes impossible. Without the readiness to permit selective transparency, systems literally lose control. Organisations can, therefore, utilise the performance …
The requirement for a controlled interaction with social complexity is trust in stable conditions. Only if you can trust, that the boss will also be the boss tomorrow, that the employee will still be employed, that the organisation will still exist, that the products, customers and markets will be the same, does it make sense …
Trust in organisations must be controlled and limited. Organisations must also utilise mistrust. A very significant difference lies within whether the utilisation of mistrust leads to conflicts or not. Organisations who opt for a controlling (mistrustful) approach, without this leading to heated arguments, resistance, loss of trust, offence, withdrawal, caution and tactics, are at a …
Organisations cannot make perfect decisions, as they do not know the future. Therefore, for the organisation, each decision always hides within it a risk of repercussions. As decisions are allocated to decision-makers, a risky position arises also arises for them. How do organisations and members of the organisation control these risks? Usually people try to …