An
Action Perspective:
The Crux of the New Management
By Nitin Nohira
and James D. Berkley 1994
California
Management Review, Vol. 36 #4 Summer 1994 pp. 70-92.
|
ABSTRACT: The
search for rational, linear designs are not the point in a non-
linear world. The identification and reliance on pragmatic action will suggest the
direction of future actions. Designs are a part of action but are not given special
privilege. This article compares and contrasts the design and action perspectives.
|
Design Perspective
Action Perspective
|
Privileges
rational design
|
Privileges
pragmatic action
|
|
Focus
on states
|
Focus
on processes
|
|
Reduces
uncertainty
|
Exploits
uncertainty
|
|
The
mean is the rule
|
The
exception in the rule
|
|
Universalistic
|
Particularistic
|
|
Equilibrium-seeking
|
Disequilibrium-seeking
|
|
Designs
as ends
|
Designs
as means to ends
|
|
One-best-way
or fit
|
Multiple
solutions
|
|
Structure
is defined in advance
|
Structure
is emergent from action
|
|
Systems
are control-oriented
|
Systems
are responsiveness-oriented
|
|
Strategy
is top-down, planned
|
Strategy
is bottom-up, evolutionary
|
|
Human resources
are organization-
oriented
|
Human
resources are individual-oriented
|
|
Organizational
Structures
|
|
Key Point: New
structures are not as relevant as new perspectives.
|
|
Searching for the
"new" organizational structure will prove to be both elusive and
counterproductive. It would be better to think of the recent ongoing changes in
management as entailing a new perspective. The experiments taking place in
organizations are not leading to some fixed, new architecture, they are
expressions of the flight from any architecture. The temptation for a new structure
is the biggest danger in organizational change.
|
|
Design
and Action
|
|
Key Point: Reasons
for and identification of the action perspective.
|
|
This de-emphasis
is a rethinking of two fundamental concepts: design and action.
The informal structure in organizations has always been secondary to the division
of labor, resource allocation, and HR practices. All management activities have
been directed at these formal designs for how the organization should work.
Design is the overarching perspective in each area of management.
The rise of information
technologies have changed all of this. Many traditional
roles of organizations now happen instantly. This makes the world seem very
chaotic, more complex, less responsive to authority. Experiments have flourished
in this environment . Underlying these experiments is the hope for a new
organizational model.
But it is not merely
a transition to a new model. The shift is away from
mechanistic models altogether. The concepts that arise instead incorporate
change, flux and real-time action. The trend to an action perspective is a trend
away from the selection of unity and stability as goals and moves toward an ethic
of multiplicity and flux. The action perspective sees organizations as complex
systems where everything happens at once. It is an emergent whole. Action does
not rule out design, it simply does not give design any privilege over any other
tool available. Action is more embodying of possibilities.
It is not enough
for an organization to announce a "re-design" or new non-
hierarchical structure. An action perspective centers on pragmatic activity and
focuses on people collaborating not fitting them into a new chart. Action puts
responsiveness ahead of controls. As circumstances are constantly evolving, it
makes more sense to reward revisions in strategic and budget targets when the
changes are made in the organizations interest. It is no longer "strategic planning"
but "strategic intent". These are responsive, flexible activities centered around the
"core competencies" of the organization. This sort of process demands more
participation and bottom -up communication. The information must come from
people who are encountering it. People throughout the organization assume more
responsibility in an action perspective. Capital allocation changes as flexibility in
that process increases.
|
|
Choices
for Managers
|
|
Key Point: Moving
to action from design takes work and ideas
.
|
|
HR attempts like
"empowerment" are really just more structures. HR
departments are usually the last of the great defenders of the design mode in an
organization. Individuals do more "knowledge work " now, and are less likely to
fit into an abstract structure predetermined by personnel. Policies should support
individual initiatives and recognize individual differences. HR departments are in
the unfortunate position of being the ones charged with carrying out
organizational change but are usually the least equipped to do so.
It is a lot of
work for a manager to keep pragmatic action in the foreground. It is
important not to get suckered into a design mode. Action has to do with
changing the way we think and any tool might be appropriate. The overall focus
is the change from design to action. The tools are not the focus. There is no
shortage of good ideas, but it takes an enormous amount of persistence and
work to put them into action.
|
1. Thoughts
