Sturdy, A. J., Wright, C., & Wylie, N. (2016). Managers as consultants: The hybridity and tensions of neo-bureaucratic management. Organization, 23(2), 184-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508414541580 Peer reviewed version Link to published version (if available): 10.1177/1350508414541580 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document © The Author(s) 2014 University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Managers as consultants: The hybridity and tensions of neo-bureaucratic management Andrew Sturdy, University of Bristol - [email protected] Christopher Wright, University of Sydney Nick Wylie, Oxford Brookes University (forthcoming in Organization, 2015) Abstract The nature and extent of changes in management remain subject to debate, especially around the notion of post-bureaucracy. Most research concedes that, partly in response to critiques of bureaucracy, some change has occurred, but towards hybrid or neo-bureaucratic practices. However, the mechanisms through which these changes have occurred and their precise form and outcomes have received less attention. This article addresses these issues by focusing on an emerging group of managers that closely resembles images of new management (e.g. project-based, change focused, externally-oriented and advisory in style). Drawing on interview-based research in the UK and Australia, it examines consulting practices and orientations adopted within management roles. It firstly constructs an ideal type of neo- bureaucracy and then explores different elements of management as consultancy empirically. It shows how they are inspired by anti-bureaucratic rationales, but assume a hybrid neo- bureaucratic form. We also show that, far from resolving tensions between rational and post- bureaucratic forms, management as consultancy both reproduces and changes the tensions of management and organization. Thus, rather than denying or heralding changes in management towards a ‘new spirit of capitalism’, we focus on a context in which such changes are occurring and demonstrate their wider implications for both management and consultancy. 1 Key words: consultancy, managerial work, post-bureaucracy, neo-bureaucracy, consultant manager, tensions, ideal type, hybridity. Introduction Considerable attention has been given to the changing nature of managerial work and, in particular, the extent to which it has been transformed through post-bureaucratic ideas and practices of ‘change, flexibility, leadership and culture’ (Tengblad, 2006: 1438). Such a question is never likely to be resolved fully (e.g. Thomas and Linstead, 2002), but even sceptics acknowledge that some change in management has occurred (e.g. Hales, 2002; Harris, et al., 2011). In particular, organisations and their management can take a hybrid, neo- bureaucratic form which combines elements of the old and new. However, the precise nature of these changes – their mechanisms, form and outcomes – have been neglected. Thus, rather than seek to establish the extent of change ( Poole, et al., 2001), we pose the question of how neo-bureaucratic management is achieved and with what effects? In particular, using an ‘extreme case’ (Blaikie, 2009), we explore the idea of management as consultancy through a study of managers taking on consulting roles and practices within organisations. Others have explored emerging management practices in areas such as project and interim management and research and development (Hodgson, 2002; Inkson, et al., 2001; Vie, 2010). However, the adoption and use of consultancy practices within organisations appears to be especially well suited to examine the changing nature of managerial work as both a medium and outcome of change. Firstly, the traditional notion of a professional consultant using abstract expertise in an advisory capacity around organisational change projects (e.g. David, et al., 2013; Kitay and Wright, 2007) has strong, although largely unacknowledged, parallels 2 with images of the new manager. For example, while by no means synonymous, the post- bureaucratic manager is portrayed like a consultant, as a partner and catalyst of organisational change and/or an expert dispensing advice through project-based working - ‘inspiration, expert advice…and proactive instigation of change’ (Hales, 2002: 55; also Tengblad, 2006). In some cases, the parallel is more explicit, with new managers seen as – ‘adept with the language of MBA programmes and big league consultants, parachuting from one change assignment to the next’ (Grey, 1999: 574). In addition, consulting as a relatively mobile or insecure – ‘up or out’ – career resonates with the greater mobility and job insecurity of contemporary management under neo-bureaucratic regimes (Clegg, 2012; Farrell and Morris, 2013; Poole, et al., 2003). But consulting is also an appropriate context to explore contemporary management as it is a key mechanism through which changes are introduced into management occupations. This is typically understood in terms of the traditional role of external management consulting bringing management ideas into client organisations, including those associated with neo- bureaucracy (Clegg, 2012). We adopt a different focus – how consulting as a set of practices and orientations has been developed within organisations to help instil enterprise, manage change and reduce hierarchical boundaries. Clearly, changes in management have occurred through other mechanisms, not least through broader market, sector and ideological changes and the growth of management education and use of information technology (Poole, et al., 2003; Thomas, 2003). Nevertheless, focussing on the practice of consultancy within organisations presents an opportunity to examine a specific context where core elements of neo-bureaucratic management are evident, one of the means through which it is introduced and, in particular, its perceived effects. 3 The article is organised as follows. First, we develop an ideal type of neo-bureaucratic organisation and management, introducing the importance of organisational tensions and dilemmas. We then outline our research study with its focus on management as consultancy. Based on our data, we explore four aspects of this phenomenon: adopting an external focus by drawing on the pro-change orientations and knowledge of outsiders; a strategic ‘value- added’ approach; use of ‘non-hierarchical’ styles of interaction and; deploying formal methods of change and cross-functional project work. We then discuss the implications of our study by engaging with debates in which traditional visions of management are reinterpreted within a ‘new spirit of capitalism’ (Boltanski and Chiapello, 2005). In particular, we argue that management as consultancy epitomises much of the popular image of the ‘new’ management, in part by co-opting criticism of bureaucracy. However, rather than fundamentally challenging traditional forms of organisation and management, or resolving tensions between these and recent post-bureaucratic ideals, neo-bureaucracy reproduces and reshapes many of the broader tensions of management and organisation. In short, our analysis sets out an ideal type of neo-bureaucratic management and illustrates how such practices can be achieved while also reinforcing the broader ‘causal powers’ of managerial control and its accompanying contradictions (Tsoukas, 1994). Bureaucracy, post-bureaucracy and neo-bureaucracy From the 1980s to date, much has been written about the move towards post-bureaucracy, where claimed organisational characteristics include ‘less rule-following, less hierarchical control, more flexibility, more coordination based on dialogue and trust, more self-organised units [e.g. projects], and more decentralised decision-making’ (Vie, 2010, p.183). Reed (2011) for example, outlines an ideal type of the post-bureaucratic organisation (PBO) as comprising: collaboration, flexibility, negotiation, dispersal (decentralisation), 4 personalisation and individualisation. This is typical of other accounts of post-bureaucracy (e.g. Bolin and Härenstam, 2008), although the term ‘flexibility’ probably under-represents the importance of organisational change (Sturdy and Grey, 2003). Together, these dimensions are based upon an oppositional shift away from bureaucracy and the perceived rigidities of ‘organisation man’ (Whyte, 1956). Here, the familiar Weberian ideal type of the rational bureaucratic organisation (RBO) applies, made up of respectively: specialisation, standardisation, formalisation, centralisation, depersonalisation and collectivisation (Reed, 2011: 233). However, how far rationalist and hierarchical traditions have been replaced by ‘support, consultation and inspiration’ (Vie, 2010, p. 183) has been hotly debated (Tengblad, 2012). There were those, especially advocates, who saw fundamental change in management and organisations towards post-bureaucracy (Kanter, 1989). But, an even larger body of academic work has been devoted to challenging claims of bureaucracy’s demise (e.g. Clegg, et al., 2011). This points to its persistence, dominance and even intensification in different forms. For example, Hales (2002: 52) argues that organisations have long been subject to minor changes or ‘organic’ variations, but still fundamentally retain ‘hierarchical forms of control, centrally-imposed rules and individual managerial responsibility and accountability’. Likewise, McSweeney (2006) and Harrison and Smith (2003) identify an intensification of bureaucracy through the spread of measurement and regulation in the public sector for example. Over time, a general recognition emerged in the literature, even among the most sceptical accounts, that while post-bureaucracy was barely evident beyond the hype, some change in organisations had indeed occurred (Harris, et al., 2011), resulting in hybrid forms of 5 bureaucracy (Tengblad, 2006). The labels attached to these vary hugely according to analytical focus such that bureaucracy became ‘soft’ (Courpasson, 2000), ‘lite’ (Hales, 2002), ‘selective’ (Alvesson and Thompson, 2005), ‘accessorized’ (Buchanan and Fitzgerald, 2011) and ‘customer-oriented’ (Korczynski, 2001). Following an emerging convention, and to avoid any implication that such changes necessarily reflect a reduction in bureaucracy, we use the term neo-bureaucracy. As Clegg (2012: 69) observes: ‘whilst there can be little doubt that real and significant change is underway….. what has emerged is not the “end” of bureaucracy, but a more complex and differentiated set of …. neo-bureaucratic possibilities’. Likewise, Farrell and Morris (2013: 1389) identify neo-bureaucracy as a hybrid that combines market and bureaucracy, centralized and de-centralized control or ‘new and more distributed modes of organisation juxtaposed with bureaucratic modes of co-ordination and control’. We therefore start from an assumption of the persistence of some features of bureaucracy, including various forms of rationality and hierarchical control, but also changes and differences resulting in hybrid organisational forms and practices which could include some features of what has come under the label of ‘post-bureaucracy’ (Alvesson and Thompson, 2005). Of course bureaucratic hybrids are not new (Adler and Borys, 1996; Ashcraft, 2001; Blau, 1955) and comprise different features. For example, Hales (2002) stresses networks and leadership alongside hierarchical control and accountability. Similarly, hybridity can be evident in the co-existence of bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic structures in different parts of the same organisation (Bolin and Härenstam, 2008). Nevertheless, these studies can be drawn together by way of a summary of the key features of neo-bureaucratic organisations: 6 1. Relatively few hierarchical levels (decentralisation) combined with centralisation of control (e.g. through information technology) (Reed, 2011); the traditional hierarchical career becomes more lateral and insecure (Morris, et al., 2008). 2. Non-hierarchical styles of interaction (Diefenbach and Sillince, 2011) with control achieved through markets, self-discipline (e.g. enterprise culture) and/or peers as well as hierarchy (Reed, 2011; Styhre, 2008). 3. The use of project planning and cross-functional integrative teams which might result in parallel and temporary hierarchical structures (Clegg and Courpasson, 2004; Hodgson, 2002). Some fragmentation of organisations and relationships (e.g. through outsourcing, external networks and diffuse occupational boundaries), but not their dissolution (Alvesson and Thompson, 2005; Poole, et al., 2003). This list is useful, not least because detailed and comprehensive accounts of neo-bureaucracy are rare. Probably the most developed classification is by Reed (2011). However, his focus is different and quite specific - control logics, foci and modes. Thus, he points to employee participation through ‘delegated autonomy’ and how labour market competition disciplines workers as well as hierarchy. In other words, the core combinations of centralisation- decentralisation and hierarchy-market are evident, but not the breadth of organisational characteristics such as those outlined above. ---------------------------------------------- INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE ---------------------------------------------- What then might an ideal type of the neo-bureaucratic organisation (NBO) look like as a hybrid of those of RBO and PBO (see Table 1)? Firstly, both specialisation (RBO) and collaboration (PBO) can co-exist by not completely breaking down functional or 7 occupational divisions, but bringing specialisms together through multi-functional project teams for example – through ‘functional integration’ (Table 1, Row 1). Indeed project management is a central theme of hybridised working more generally, with its focus on measurement, change and local accountability (Clegg and Courpasson, 2004). This is also reflected in the combination of standardisation and flexibility/change (Row 2) where change is managed in a structured way using, but also adapting, formal tools– what we have termed ‘managed improvisation’. Likewise, informal negotiation and political relations with others can be achieved through formal structures or practices such as relationship and change management techniques and internal markets – a form of ‘structured organisational politics’ (Row 3). Market structures within organisations, where colleagues become clients or customers for example, also form part of the discipline sought partly outside of traditional hierarchical control – ‘delegated autonomy’. This is also evident in the emphasis placed on the leader or facilitator at the expense of the manager (O’Reilly and Reed, 2011) and, as noted already, can be partly achieved through distributed technologies (Reed, 2011) (Row 4). A hybrid form of depersonalisation and personalisation (Row 5) has not received the same attention in the literature as other aspects of the NBO. However, we will suggest that a form of this is evident in the practice of managers having to demonstrate how they objectively ‘add value’ to the organisation, but in a way which is also based on personal relationship networks and credibility – what we have termed ‘networked meritocracy’. Finally, between the collective identification of ‘organisation man’ and the individualisation of PBO (Row 6) lies the prospect of conflicting or dual identities such as that of the ‘professionals as managers’ (e.g. doctor managers) in many public sector hybrids (Farrell and Morris, 2013), where organisational commitment may be partial or shifting. 8 This ideal type of the NBO is clearly linked to the established models of the RBO and PBO and this adds to its analytical value. However, its relative simplicity means that some issues are hidden from view. Indeed, the critiques of bureaucracy which helped inform changes in management practice extend into other areas. For example, Boltanski and Chiapello (2005, p. 165) cited the following perceived problems of bureaucratic management as being: static; hierarchical; internally focused; tactical; ‘excessively technical’; limiting of autonomy and authenticity; open-ended (ongoing); and lacking in commerciality or market discipline. Most of these are covered in our ideal type, but we might add a greater external and strategic focus to PBO as well as the need to lose an ‘open-ended approach’ and introduce some form of periodic ‘closure’. This might translate into elements of a hybrid NBO form which combined internal and external orientations; short-term projects and long-term development and; attention to both the strategic and tactical or operational (see Table 2). Reed (2011: 243) for example, also talks of ‘a deft combination of remote strategic leadership and detailed operational management’. ---------------------------------------------- INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE ---------------------------------------------- Ideal types are of course useful as analytical and comparative tools in that they simplify, synthesise and accentuate. However, they are not intended to reflect reality exactly (Hekman, 1983). For example, empirical research shows how new organisational forms are likely to vary significantly in practice, by sector or nation for example (Bolin and Härenstam, 2008; Johnson, et al., 2009). Indeed, our concern is not with organisational forms per se, but on what neo-bureaucratic organisation means for management practices and outcomes. Before 9