Conclusiones del capítulo

Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1993, 1995) studies of decentralised enterprises reveal that senior managers in this type of organisation develop a set of management ideas based on a more personalised approach that encourages a diversity of views and empowers employees to develop their own thoughts. Bartlett and Ghoshal (1995) acknowledge that vertically-integrated firms and multidivisional organisations (see Section 2.3), with hierarchical structures, a financial orientation and authority-based processes, enable the growth of corporations. However, MCS in these corporations create vertical communication channels that may insulate business units and prevent the sharing of strengths between different units, thus making corporations inflexible, slow to innovate and resistant to change. Bartlett and Ghoshal focus on

differences between the paradigm that has dominated management since the end of the Second World War (i.e. multidivisional firms with cybernetic MCS, focused on achieving the “what”) and a set of emerging ideas. They posit that modern multidivisional corporations are based on an assumption that capital is companies’ most critical and scarce resource, and that the role of employees is merely to leverage shareholders’ investment in equipment and machinery. These ideas provide the underpinning for an authority-based structure and MCS that require the implementation of plans to drive performance (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1995). Hence, hierarchical structures and multidivisional organisations may require MCS to minimise risk by controlling the idiosyncrasies of human behaviour (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1994, 1995). This idea connects with that of Miller and O’Leary (1990), who suggest that the individual, as a manageable and efficient entity, is “made up” in order to improve efficiency and achieve higher profits.

A problem with this philosophy is that “assumptions about the unpredictability and pathology of human behavior became self-fulfilling” (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1995, p.134). MCS that ensure conformity may also repress creativity and initiative: “Stripped of individuality, people often engaged in the very behaviors that the system had been designed to control” (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1995, p.134). According to Bartlett and Ghoshal (1994, p.88), “If corporate ambition begins to focus on the company’s narrow self-interest, it eventually loses the excitement, support, and commitment that emerge when objectives are linked to broader human aspirations.”

Bartlett and Ghoshal argue that underlying cybernetic MC is an assumption that the “human role in organizations is essentially passive and pathological” (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1993, p.43). Instead, in their study of decentralised enterprises, they observe a management philosophy based on purpose, process and people. They claim that senior management’s first responsibility should be the articulation of purpose rather than strategy (i.e. why an organisation exists). Alternative, network- based (N-form) organisations are characterised by the combination of knowledge rather than its division, which is the basic principle of the M-form (Hedlund, 1994). Thus, managers in N-form enterprises start to notice that horizontal processes matter. This new structure may allow senior managers to increase communication and link with the people in their companies. According to this view, the strategy described in quantitative targets (the “what”) no longer appears to be the central focus of senior managers; hence, the aims of MCS should be broadened to include other achievements more connected with purpose and people.

Bartlett and Ghoshal (1993, p.45) propose an alternative theory based on the assumption that "individuals have the capacity for personal agency and initiative” and that organisations may create MCS to elicit and encourage such behaviour. This management idea, based on purpose, process and people, may allow an organisation to:

reduce its reliance on strategic-planning systems by influencing the organization's direction through the development and deployment of key people; lighten the burden of control systems by developing personal values and interpersonal relationships that encourage self- monitoring; and replace much of its dependence on information systems by developing personal communications with those who have access to vital intelligence and expertise (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1995, p.135).

Bartlett and Ghoshal’s assumption is that the diversity and unpredictability of the human spirit make initiative, creativity and entrepreneurship possible. They suggest that an entrepreneurial process may require a more positive view of human nature. Furthermore, they explain that human behaviour appears to be determined partly by the organisational context and partly by the prior disposition of the individuals involved, and that:

... human beings are capable of both initiative and shirking, that they are given to both collaboration and opportunism, and that they are constrained by inertia but are also capable of learning. Within a firm, actual behavior is determined in part by the prior disposition of actors (i.e. the location on the spectrum of personal characteristics of the particular individuals involved) and in part by the situation they face (i.e. how the firm’s context influences their behavior) (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1993, p.45).

Hence, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1995) suggest that a basic task of corporate senior managers is to recapture these valuable human attributes by individualising the corporation. According to this model, senior managers may select and promote individuals with a predisposition toward desired behaviours, but senior managers may also develop an organisational context that encourages managers to act as they would in a functional team. Figure 2.1 shows Bartlett and Ghoshal’s interpretation of human behaviour and how managerial actions may help to create contexts that reinforce organisational members’ learning, cooperation, initiative and creativity.

Figure 2.1: The role of context in shaping individual behaviour

Source: Adapted from Bartlett and Ghoshal (1993, p.45, Figure 6)

Figure 2.1 illustrates Bartlett and Ghoshal’s idea that individuals have the capacity for personal agency and initiative, and that organisations may create MCS to elicit and encourage such behaviour. Organisation context and the appropriate MCS may mould individual behaviour, promoting managers’ initiative and creativity rather than free-riding and shirking, collaboration instead of opportunism, and learning rather than inertia.