What are companies’ strengths and weaknesses in dealing with rebellion? As the twenty-first century gets under way, self-proclaimed performance-based management possesses three traits: arrogant claims to leadership; a refusal to allow open discussion allied to the professed infallibility of an elite with broad managerial impunity; and disdain for those lower down the scale. This is all the more surprising as it is generally thought that the page had long since been turned on the era of bureaucracy. Companies that are managed from a power base — those displaying these three traits — are fertile ground for rebellion.
KeywordsSenior Management Power Structure Middle Manager Modern Management Executive Board
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.L. Coch and J. R. P. French, Jr., Overcoming resistance to change, Human relations, 1: 512–32 1947–8.Google Scholar
- 2.M. Weber, Economy and society, Berkeley, Calif., University of California Press, 1978.Google Scholar
- 3.H. Mintzberg, The structuring of organization: A synthesis of the research, New York, Prentice Hall, 1979.Google Scholar
- 4.C. Heckscher and A. Donnellon (eds), The post-bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change, Newbury Park, Calif., Sage, 1994.Google Scholar
- 5.H. Reihlen, The logics of heterarchies: Making organizations competitive for knowledge-based competition, University of Cologne, Seminar für Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftlehre, Working paper no. 91, 1996.Google Scholar
- 6.R. A. Burgelman, Strategy is destiny. How strategy-making shapes a company’s future, New York, Simon & Schuster, 2002.Google Scholar
- 8.K. Weick, Sensemaking in organisations, London, Sage, 1995.Google Scholar
- 10.S. Pollard, The genesis of modern management. A study of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
- 11.S. Ackroyd and P. Thompson, Organizational misbehaviours, London, Sage, 1999.Google Scholar