-
Research in the Sociology of OrganizationsEmerald Book Chapter:
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary WorkSusanne E. Lundholm,
Jens Rennstam, Mats Alvesson
Article information:To cite this document: Susanne E. Lundholm,
Jens Rennstam, Mats Alvesson, (2012),"Understanding Hierarchy in
Contemporary Work", Thomas Diefenbach, Rune Todnem By, in (ed.)
Reinventing Hierarchy and Bureaucracy - from the Bureau to Network
Organizations (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume
35), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 113 - 140Permanent link
to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000035007Downloaded on:
22-11-2012
References: This document contains references to 40 other
documents
To copy this document: [email protected]
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald
subscription provided by CORNELL UNIVERSITY
For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other
Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors
service. Information about how to choose which publication to write
for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years'
experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent
publisher of global research with impact in business, society,
public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275
journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive
range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3
and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico
and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
-
UNDERSTANDING HIERARCHY IN
verticalization and horizontalization loose coupling,
translation, andKeywords: Hierarchy; postbureaucracy; knowledge
work; vertical andhorizontal practices; managers; subordinates
Reinventing Hierarchy and Bureaucracy from the Bureau to Network
Organizations
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 35,
113140
Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reservedintegration are
identied and illustrated, drawing on three ethnogra-phically
inspired studies of knowledge work. Through these threedynamics,
the chapter casts light on and provides nuances to the
currentdiscussion in the literature on postbureaucracy.CONTEMPORARY
WORK
Susanne E. Lundholm, Jens Rennstam and
Mats Alvesson1
ABSTRACT
The chapter aims to bring out the dynamic nature or hierarchy
inorganizations and presents a conceptual framework for making
sense ofhierarchy in contemporary work. We describe hierarchy as
the result of acontradictory dynamic that incorporates both
vertical and horizontalpractices of organizing. The vertical
practice, verticalization, draws onand reproduces the formal
organization, whereas the horizontal practice,horizontalization,
orders people on the basis of their knowledge andinitiatives. The
dynamic between these two practices varies, we argue,depending on
the social and epistemic distance of formal managersfrom the
operative work process. Three different dynamics betweenISSN:
0733-558X/doi:10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000035007
113
-
INTRODUCTION
Organizational hierarchy is generally understood as the formal,
documentedsystem according to which people in an organization are
ranked in termsof authority along a vertical axis. The role and
nature of hierarchy has beenwidely debated in recent decades, not
least in terms of its positive andnegative effect on organizational
success and employee motivation. Thosewho are skeptical of
hierarchy point out its connection to oppression andinjustice, the
lack of discretion, initiative, and exibility, and the fact
thathierarchy tends to be perceived as a demotivating force in the
organization(McGregor, 1960). This is particularly the case in the
expanding sector ofknowledge work where creativity and workers
initiative are central to thesuccess of the rm (Alvesson, 2004;
Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).In response to such views,
others argue that the formal chain of command isa necessary means
to maintain clarity and effectiveness in the organization(e.g.,
Abrahamsson, 2007; Weber, 1947), and while hierarchy may appear ina
different shape today than it used to, most researchers agree that
it is apersistent feature of contemporary organizations (e.g.,
Courpasson, 2000;Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Hales, 2002; Hop,
2006). With a certain size,hierarchy is almost impossible to
avoid.We agree with those who claim the persistence of hierarchy in
organi-
zations, although we argue that the nature and dynamic of
hierarchy incontemporary organizations and work are poorly
understood. For example,we know that formal hierarchy or at least a
strong adherence to it maydamage creativity, but we know less about
how hierarchy is achieved insituations where creativity plays a
central role. Similarly, we know thatexpert authority may or even
should take the place of formal authority inthese contexts (Pearce
& Conger, 2003), but if so, how does the relationshipbetween
formal and expert authority play out in practice? To answer
thesequestions we need to go beyond either/or conceptions of
hierarchy, and seeka more nuanced understanding. That is what we
intend to do in this chapter.More specically, we outline a
conceptual framework that describes howhierarchy is accomplished in
everyday work contexts, where vertical (formalauthority) and
horizontal (expert authority) aspects of organization meet.Our
agenda, as specied above, requires that we abandon a reied and
static understanding of hierarchy, and instead look at how
hierarchy isconstructed and negotiated in social interaction. The
idea that hierarchy isconstructed is not new to the eld of
organization studies (see McPhee &
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.114Poole, 2001). Nevertheless, its
potential is yet to be unleashed by a fullerunderstanding of how
this happens. In this text, we suggest that hierarchy is
bfbgfhResaltado
bfbgfhResaltado
bfbgfhResaltado
bfbgfhResaltado
bfbgfhResaltado
bfbgfhResaltado
-
horizontalization (the undoing of formal hierarchy). Hierarchy
is thus seen
as a dynamic that incorporates contradictory organizing
principles, and so,we can conceptualize hierarchy by describing
this dynamic. In this chapterwe identify three versions of the
verticalhorizontal dynamics that we termloose coupling,
translation, and integration. Each of these categories whichmake up
our conceptual framework displays a specic type of interfacebetween
the vertical and the horizontal. This interface, in turn, appears
tofollow from the managers position. Or to be more exact, it
depends onthe distance of the manager from the operative work
process, both in asocial and epistemic sense.The focus of this
chapter lies consequently not on broader organizational
arrangements structural or cultural associated with large-scale
organiza-tions as wholes, spanning over several hierarchical levels
and incorporatingthe larger picture of vertical division of labor.
Instead, focus is on the relationsbetween managers and their
(formal) subordinates. (Whether the subordi-nates really are
subordinated, or when and how they become subordinated,are key
questions.) Our view is very much a micro view, based on a
close-upperspective of howpeople are doing or undoing hierarchy in
local practices.To esh out the categories of our conceptual
framework, the chapter
draws on empirical material from three ethnographically inspired
studies ofSwedish business rms: one bank, one IT consulting rm, and
one high-tech/engineering company. From these studies we extract
different episodes thatwill serve as illustrations of our
theoretical points, allowingus tomake sense ofloose coupling,
translation, and integration.The chapter unfolds by rst, briey,
reviewing the literature on hierarchy
in organizations, arguing for a view of hierarchy as constructed
in everydaypractice. Following this, we present and discuss our
conceptual framework,including the concepts of horizontalization
and verticalization. After that,we account for the methodological
aspects of our work, followed by someempirical examples that
illustrate the categories of our conceptual frame-work. Finally, we
discuss theoretical implications and how our ndings helpus to make
sense of hierarchy in contemporary work.
ON HIERARCHYproduced in the meeting between two seemingly
contradictory practices thatwe shall call verticalization (the
doing of formal hierarchy/authority) and
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 115Hierarchy is a
central theme in the classical debate between
scienticmanagement/Taylorism and the human relations movement.
Under the
bfbgfhResaltado
-
paradigm of scientic management, hierarchy was seen as necessary
forpreventing soldiering, dening work tasks, and supervising
workersperformance. Taylor was very explicit about this, pointing
out that the taskof supervisors was to make sure that every workman
knows in detail thetask which he is to accomplish (Taylor,
1911/1998, p. 17). The humanrelations school thought quite
differently of hierarchy. Not in the sense thatthere should not be
any, but if displayed too explicitly, it was considered as
apotential obstacle to informal communication betweenworkers, which
in turnwas a necessary prerequisite for effective collaboration
(Roethlisberger &Dickson, 1939, p. 559). So instead of
directing the tasks of workers,supervisors were instructed to
enable good teamwork and to invite employeesinto processes of
decision-making, thus distancing management somewhatfrom the
immediate work process.A skeptical attitude toward hierarchy is
largely prevalent today, and if
any of the classical paradigms has won the battle it is the
human relationsapproach. Explicit advocacy of hierarchy is indeed
rare these days theargument being that hierarchy sits badly with
current trends in contempor-ary society toward more complex forms
of work, which are difcult tocontrol by hierarchical means, such as
direct supervision or formal rules.Firms today are instead claimed
to be complex, contested social systems(Kuhn, 2008) characterized
by distributed/collective leadership (Fairhurst,2008; Gronn, 2002),
increasingly intent on creating worker participation(Stohl &
Cheney, 2001), teamwork (Cohen & Bailey, 1997), and
empower-ment (Styhre, 2001). This characterization is particularly
relevant withrespect to so-called knowledge work, which tends to be
nonroutinized,thus relying heavily on the expertise and creativity
of the employees (e.g.,Alvesson, 2004; Starbuck, 1992). In this
type of work, hierarchicalmanagement is seen as counter-productive,
and new forms of managementare suggested that acknowledge complex
rather than hierarchical interactionwith employees (Uhl-Bien et
al., 2007). The manager, in turn, is seen as acoach, teacher, and
servant (Senge, 2004), as a social integrator (Alvesson,1995), and
as a manager of meaning (Smircich & Morgan, 1982) rather
thansupervisor or boss.The literature discussed above seems to
suggest that we are moving
away from a vertical or bureaucratic organization. Nevertheless,
as somecommentators have pointed out, this postbureaucratic
argument should notbe exaggerated (Alvesson & Thompson, 2004).
Rather, we are in need of amore nuanced understanding of the
matter. In response to such calls for
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.116nuances, scholars have used terms
such as bureaucracy-lite (Hales, 2002),and soft bureaucracy
(Courpasson, 2000) to describe a more moderate
-
how such decisions translate into the work of the ostensibly
empowered
employees.The concepts of soft and lite bureaucracy, then,
suggest that hier-
archy is an ambiguous phenomenon. It is seldom completely
obvious orxed, but rather, hierarchy is played out in various
issue-specic ways, and avariety of circumstances tend to support,
weaken, or bypass hierarchy,including competence and status-based
(a) symmetries between people ondifferent hierarchical
levels.Accounts that reect critically on the notion of
postbureaucracy thus
attempt to nuance the idea that the world of organizations has
gone througha radical change, with new forms of organizing as a
result. Instead theyargue for the persistence of a moderated
vertical order. However, it is notentirely clear what this
moderated order looks like and there is presumablyenormous
empirical variation. The notions of soft and lite bureaucracygive
you some idea of what postbureaucracy may be. However, suchconcepts
are not very illuminating, in terms of their everyday
implications.This is a blank that we intend to ll with this
chapter, andmore specically wewill describe hierarchy as a dynamic
that occurs when vertical and horizontalordering processes meet and
interact. In particular, we will examine how amanagerial order
coexists and interacts in practice with a regime based on
theinitiatives of qualied individuals, often superior to their
managers in termsof operational knowledge.
The Constructed Hierarchy
The perspective of this chapter thus goes beyond the common idea
oforganizations as either hierarchies, where managers rule, or the
opposite,with the organization being viewed as a at, democratic
collective (cf. Blaug,2009; Lundholm, 2011; Rennstam, 2007).
Instead we assume the coexistenceof and interaction between
managerial and knowledge-based authority, andversion of the
traditional bureaucratic ideal type. In this lite bureaucracy,there
are on the one hand fewer vertical layers and employees
areempowered in terms of increased discretion over tasks. But on
the otherhand, the formal hierarchy is maintained when it comes to
traditionalmanagerial privileges such as formulation of goals,
strategies, reorganiza-tions, and performance measurement
principles (Sennett, 1998). Keydecisions are thus still in the
hands of top managers, although it is unclear
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 117we view
hierarchy as an emergent phenomenon, constructed in organiza-tional
practice. The idea implies a focus on processes of organizing
rather
-
interpretive patterns (Schatzki, 2001; Thevenot, 2001).
The term interpretive patterns indicates a connection between
the
notion of practice and that of culture. Practice theory is
indeed a culturaltheory in the sense that it pays attention to how
social order is maintainedand how shared meanings are located and
stabilized, with particularattention to practices (Reckwitz, 2002).
Cultural theory is frequently drawnupon in the study of
organizations, and in relation to hierarchy, scholarshave shown how
artifacts, rituals, and other symbolic means are used toreinforce
or balance the formal structure (e.g., Rosen, 1989). These
areimportant aspects of hierarchy in organizations, but a
symbolic/ritual focustends to assume that meaning is external to
practice. In contrast, followingpractice theory, we argue that
formal structures should not be assigned an apriori meaning
external to everyday organizational activity. Insteadstructure is
enacted in practices, which are building blocks in which
socialorder resides (Schatzki, 2001). At the core of this practice
approach toorganization is the contrasting of formal
representations of organizationwith accounts of actual activities
(Brown & Duguid, 1991, p. 41), becausewhile formal denitions of
work relations do exist on paper, the meaningand relevance of such
denitions are always a matter of practice. Morespecically, such
understandings are negotiated in instances of livedculture, for
example, when a subordinate discusses work solutions withher/his
manager, or when this is done among peers.
Verticalization and Horizontalization
While all organizations exhibit some degree of formal hierarchy,
they alsoentail a horizontal dimension with people interacting as
peers, based onthe principle of equality. In these situations,
employees still inuence eachother, but not on the basis of formal
authority. Instead, inuence is basedon ideas and arguments, which
reect a knowledge or creativity that is notthan organization
(McPhee & Poole, 2001). In consequence, instead of takingthe
organization and its existence for granted, an emergent perspective
onhierarchy commands us to examine how hierarchy is done and
sometimesundone or at least softened in everyday practice. Our
approach doesnot imply a chaotic understanding of hierarchy,
however. Instead, we arguethat hierarchy resides and emerges in
practices, and by practices we meaneveryday activities that display
a certain regularity and that invoke certain
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.118tightly associated with the persons
formal position in the organizationalscheme. In organizations, this
horizontal interaction almost always takes
-
are better equipped to control work. But the formal organization
remains
even under these conditions, and it is likely to be drawn upon
to variousdegrees as a legitimate way of making sense of work
relations. When people,explicitly or implicitly, call upon the
formal organization to place themselvesin a formally superior or
subordinate position, thus doing the formalhierarchy, we refer to
this as verticalization.Reasonably, all organizations entail both
the doing and undoing of
hierarchy in the sense that there is a collective ability to
both verticalize(using formal hierarchy) and horizontalize
(bracketing the formal hier-archy). The organization will then be
able to maintain a sense of order andaccountability without
scarifying the knowledge, ideas, and initiatives ofindividuals. In
this chapter we present a framework that details how thishappens in
practice and how the processes of verticalization and
horizon-talization interact and coexist in everyday work. The task
is warranted, webelieve, as the coexistence of verticalization and
horizontalization cannot betaken for granted. Verticalization and
horizontalization exist in a tenserelationship, as contradictory
modes of organizing, and their relationshipneeds to be explained.
In particular, there is a need to explain how a regimethat gives
uncontested power to formally appointed managers coexists withone
that grants authority to knowledgeable individuals (regardless of
theirformal position). Instead of considering organization as
either hierarchical ornot, we consider verticalization and
horizontalization as coexisting modesof organizing in a
contradictory dynamic, which, we believe, is a fruitfulway of
conceptualizing hierarchy in contemporary work.2
A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Dynamics of
Hierarchy
In the following we attempt to conceptualize the contradictory
dynamic thatoccurs when processes of verticalization and
horizontalization meet byconstructing a framework. We shall present
three hierarchical dynamics loose coupling, translation, and
integration which each represent differentplace in light of a
formal hierarchy, and we may talk about horizontalizationwhen the
horizontal interaction involves bypassing or marginalizing
theformal hierarchy. In short, horizontalization is about undoing
the formalhierarchy.Horizontalization is likely to be more common
when the work process
displays a certain complexity and/or, for some other reason,
subordinates
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 119relationships
between verticalization and horizontalization. These
relation-ships, in turn, are informed by what we term managerial
distance, that is the
-
social as well as epistemic distance of formal management from
theoperative work process.The rst dynamic is loose coupling. As
operative activities are increasingly
in the hands of employees that enjoy a great deal of discretion
on basis oftheir knowledge, managerial activities tend to transpire
further away fromthe operative work process. When management cannot
inuence theoperative work directly, which is especially the case in
knowledge work,they will often try to inuence it indirectly by
articulating strategies, culturalmessages, organizational
identities, and overarching visions (e.g., Alvesson,2004). Thus,
managers attempt to impact employees by inuencing otheraspects of
organizational life than the actual work, hoping to increase
thelikelihood of beneciary actions on part of employees.The picture
painted above implies that operative work, these days, is often
managed horizontally among peers, on the basis of superior
knowledge ofthe work process, and that these horizontal processes
are touched only froma distance, indirectly, and occasionally by
vertical interventions. For thisreason, we may talk about a loose
coupling between verticalization andhorizontalization (cf. Weick,
1976). Loose coupling is generally an effect ofcomplexity. The
typical example would be a senior manager in a relativelycomplex
workeld. The manager will then be distant from work, bothsocially
and epistemically, because on the higher level where
seniormanagement acts, there is little concern or contact with the
details of work(social distance). And if the work process is
complex, the manager is likelyto have only a shallow understanding
of it (epistemic distance). Thus, whenwork gets complex, the
distance between management and the work processincreases both in a
physical and epistemic sense and managers will try totarget the
work process through means that are only indirectly related to
thework process.Translation is the second verticalhorizontal
dynamic in our framework,
and it is a category that describes how hierarchy may be
constructed whenmanagement is somewhat engaged in (and thereby
closer to) the operativework process. The typical case here is a
middle manager that meets withthe operative core of the workforce
on a daily basis, though without beingpart of such operations
him-/herself. The manager will then have someunderstanding of the
technical aspects of work, as well as the goings-on at theoperative
level. We may characterize this as medium distance, both
epis-temically and socially. This means that the manager is able to
ask questionsabout work, formulate goals, concerns, and directions,
but in order for these
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.120directions to make sense in
practice, they need to be translated into operativework by
subordinates. The effect of managerial involvement is thus
largely
-
dependent on how it is made sense of and effectuated by
employees whoperform the actual work.In light of the above, we may
say that the vertical process is translated
into a horizontal process. In this process of undoing the formal
hierarchy,employees practice-related and esoteric knowledge is
important, becauseultimately, this knowledge is what enables
employee discretion to translatemanagerial interventions (the
process of verticalization).3 Indeed, even ifsubordinates do not
mean for it to happen, the managerial intention oftengets lost as
it travels through the process of translation, and there may notbe
much the manager can do about it. In many cases though,
translationdoes not pose a true challenge to managerial agendas.
Instead it seems as ifemployees, in the process of translation,
step in and take on the role ofmanagers, and their practical and
esoteric knowledge then becomes a meansto managerial ends. This
last point is often made by critical managementscholars who are
skeptical of contemporary talk of employee discretion
andempowerment. Our category of translation takes a middle road
with regardto this question, allowing both for translations that
complete and redirectmanagerial intentions.The third and nal
dynamic of our framework is termed integration.
Integration happens when processes of verticalization and
horizontalizationmerge and become intertwined to the extent that it
becomes difcult to makea meaningful distinction between the two. In
practice, this occurs when themanager is also the most or one of
the most procient experts in theoperative work. An example could be
a really small rm where those whowork at the operative level also
own and manage the rm. In such casesthere is a lack of a salient
formal structure, and consequently it will be hardto dene people as
either managers or subordinates. Yet another example iswhen the
formal position of manager is directly linked with expertcompetence
in a eld of practice. For instance, in research, the title
asprofessor is awarded to a person with a great academic track
record, but as aprofessor one will often also act as manager for
more junior researchers.When the professor directs the work of a
junior researcher, for example aspart of a coauthored paper, it may
be hard to tell if this is because she/heenjoys a superior, formal
position, or if it is because the professor hassuperior knowledge.
Most likely it is both, and it is difcult to separate thesetwo
bases of authority. Consequently, we may talk about
integrationbetween the vertical and horizontal in an actual
practice of work.In the context of integration, managerial distance
is thus low or non-
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 121existent,
meaning that the manager is as engaged in and knowledgeable ofthe
operative work as anyone else. She/he holds a similar
understanding
-
Building a framework based on the notion of managerial distance
is a
means to accomplish an overall ambition with this chapter, that
is, tomediate between deterministic and uid conceptions of
hierarchy. A focuson managerial distance constitutes an explicit
recognition of formalstructure, implying that it must be taken into
account, by researchers andpractitioners alike. However, in the
vein of avoiding either/or as well asstatic conceptions of
hierarchy, we likewise recognize the existence ofdifferent forms of
horizontalization that undo the formal structure. Whatthis undoing
amounts to varies, and arguably, it varies with the
managerialdistance. In the case of loose coupling,
horizontalization may take a varietyof shapes from ignorance and
cynicism to individual reconstruction or theactual adoption of
managerial initiatives in light of general conditions ofwork
provided by senior management. In the dynamic of translation,
inturn, when managers are closer to work, undoing requires the
ability tomake sense of and translate a given instruction, goal, or
concern intooperative practice, which may to varying degrees lead
to changes in thedirection intended by management. Finally, when
management is so closethat it becomes integrated in the operative
work, instructions tosubordinates will be quite specic and thus
hard to avoid or redirect. Atthe same time, because the
horizontalvertical order is intertwined here,such instructions can
be interpreted as expert based, and thus, there is aspace for the
undoing of formal hierarchy.
METHOD
The chapter draws on a number of ethnographic studies of
organizations inthe context of professional and knowledge intensive
work: an IT consultancyrm, a bank, and an engineering rm. These
organizations have been studiedin depth, each study including a
large number of interviews and observationsof a variety of
situations. The studies differ in scope and focus, but all
includeof the work process as subordinates, and is updated on
recent events anddetails of daily operations. Taken together, these
conditions enable themanager to hold an informed conversation with
subordinates about work,and through such conversations she/he is
able to control the operativeprocess in detail. The manager may be
seen as having dual memberships, inthe vertical as well as
horizontal regime, which enables her/him to movebetween the regimes
and knowledgeably handle situations in both.
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.122rich material for addressing issues
of hierarchy, and how it is (un)done inpractices. One study of the
IT consultancy rm is broader and mainly
-
addresses understandings and meanings on a general level: how
theorganization is structured and how claims to be nonhierarchical
stands inan ambiguous relation to various forms of vertical
differentiation. The othertwo studies focus more strongly on
situated practices, observed and describedin depth.The IT
consultancy case involved the entire rm, with 500 employees,
and
addressed organizational culture, including issues around
community andthe role of managers in managing values and meanings
and accomplishingsocial integration in a business with employees
working at client sites,leading to a risk of organizational
fragmentation and weak identication.The study included about 40
interviews and some observations of organizedsocial events.The bank
study was conducted at local branches in Sweden during a
period of 18 months, focusing specically on everyday
interactions betweenformally superior managers and their
subordinates. These interactions weresometimes audio recorded (if
occurring in meetings), and on other occasions(mostly in everyday
work) the researcher relied on detailed eld notes(scribbled down on
spot as the interaction was occurring). As a supplementto these
observations, the researcher conducted around 30 interviews
withmanagers and employees.The engineering study was done in a
branch of a large global producer of
telecommunication technology. The study focused on the operative
work ofthe engineers, including ongoing production such as
laboratory work as wellas interactions between superiors and
subordinates. Seventy-six interviewswere conducted and interactions
at 20 work meetings were recorded andtranscribed, whereas data from
every day, ad-hoc interactions was gatheredthough shadowing or
general hanging out with the engineers, taking notesas interesting
interactions occurred.4
These three studies arguably give a good empirical grounding
fordeveloping knowledge regarding the nature of hierarchy, at least
in partsof contemporary economy and work life. Consequently, we
will use thesestudies to illustrate and esh out the content of our
conceptual framework.The result that we intend is a less abstract
way of understanding theambiguous nature of hierarchy, previously
described using terms such aslite and soft. Specically, we
conceptualize the (ambiguous) hierarchyas a dynamic that
simultaneously incorporates vertical and horizontalmodes of
organizing.To make our point we will draw on a number of empirical
episodes
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 123describing how
superiors and subordinates interact in the course of dailywork.
These examples allow us to show in some detail the process
whereby
-
employees, indicating that there is a desire to preserve a
certain degree of
equality and downplay formal structure (cf. Kanter, 1977). Some
traditionalforms of hierarchical symbolism are avoided. Top
management is, forexample, located at the rst oor, close to the
reception, and their ofceshave like everybody elses glass doors. On
the top oor, space isdesignated for recreational,
community-building purposes, with jacuzzi,kitchen, piano bar, etc.
At the same time, there are clear indications ofhierarchy in
practice, including activities for the manager group
under-Hierarchy in Three Organizations: An Ambiguous Construct
The IT consultancy rm is in many ways an example of a at,
nonhier-archical organization, almost exemplary from the point of
view of advocatesof the postbureaucracy (and posthierarchy) thesis.
Managers and employeesoften say that there are only three
hierarchical levels: managing director ofrm, subsidiary manager,
and consultant. The rm is organized in terms ofsubsidiaries with a
maximum of 50 employees in order to maintain a senseof small size
and with minimal demand for hierarchy. Management makes apoint of
this in annual reports, interviews, and introductory courses for
newhierarchy is done and undone. Or in different words, they
illustrate theintersection between the vertical and the horizontal.
And although episodesmay seem very specic, we think they can be
used to capture and illustrate aphenomenon of broader interest.
More specically, they provide insightsinto the ambiguity of
hierarchy, in that they qualify the character andcomponents of this
ambiguity.
UNPACKING THE ORGANIZATIONAL HIERARCHY
In this section, we will illustrate empirically some of the
complexitiesaround hierarchy in contemporary organizations. We
start by offering abrief description of our case companies, showing
that, upon closer obser-vation, it is often difcult to dene
organizations as either hierarchical ornonhierarchical. Rather,
hierarchy is an ambiguous phenomenon. Follow-ing this, we attempt
to bring some clarity to this ambiguity by elaboratingon the
character of the relationship between processes of verticalization
andhorizontalization.
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.124scoring their signicance compared
to the rest. Managers state that informalhierarchy is unavoidable
because new employees cannot take the same
-
responsibility as more experienced ones. Also, although the
subsidiaries onlyhave one manager according to the formal
organization chart, there isalways a second person that in practice
acts as deputy, and one or twoadditional persons who are included
in a so-called management team. So inthe end, it seems,
subsidiaries do have additional hierarchical layers,although these
are not publicly acknowledged. In the rm, there is muchjuggling
between hierarchy-reinforcing and
hierarchy-reducing/avoidingpractices.In the engineering case there
is a similar ambiguity in terms of how
hierarchy is constructed. The engineering rm is a large
multinationalcorporation, but the branch studied only has about 800
employees. At arst glance, the branch looks like a traditional
hierarchical organization, withve formal levels of hierarchy. Some
employees experience this hierarchyand complain about top
management making unrealistic decisions, inparticular in terms of
time. But other statements, from managers andengineers alike,
complicate the picture and indicate that the line of commandis not
always followed. For example, one lower level manager points out
thattheres nobody telling us what to do, by which he means that his
group notonly has to nd out new productive operative solutions for
themselves, butalso take initiative to long-term strategic changes.
A project manager in thegroup also stresses this, stating that they
have to construct their own goals,since nobody gives any directives
from above, and an experienced engineerreveals how the content of
deadlines is often manipulated when topmanagement makes unrealistic
decisions. Last, observations of work in theorganization do indeed
indicate that much of the work is organized basedon collegial
feedback rather than top-down directives.Finally, if we consider
the bank case, perhaps quite surprisingly, it too
displays hierarchical ambiguity. Banks are often thought of as
ideal-typebureaucracies, with their vertical shape and the many
policies/regulationsthat guide work. Nevertheless, with the
deregulation of nancial markets,banks have become market driven
with emphasis on customization anddecentralization. In practice,
this means more decisional power to ordinaryemployees in their
dealings with customers. Both employees and managersstress this
discretion of employees, arguing that such autonomy
begetsmotivation, but they also point at gains in terms of
efciency. The customerdoes not have to wait long for the promise of
a loan, and in addition, thesubordinate often has more in-depth
knowledge of customers and thetechnicalities of work, at least when
it comes to more complex cases. For this
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 125reason, it makes
sense that it is them, and not managers, who make mostdecisions
about work. At the same time, hierarchy is an inevitable aspect
of
-
employees largely rely on horizontal interaction to decide what
to do. Thus,
the formal, overall organizational arrangements do not
necessarily say muchabout specic managersubordinate interactions.
In the following we shallgo beyond the statement that hierarchy is
ambiguous, and instead look atthe nature and components of this
ambiguity. We achieve this by lookinginto how hierarchy is
constructed in practice.
Illustrations: The VerticalHorizontal Dynamics in Practice
The above discussion centers on the notion of hierarchical
ambiguity.Ambiguity indicates that something is opaque or hard to
make sense of inclear and simple terms. In the case of hierarchy,
this is because it appears asif contradictory principles organize
work relations. One way to disentanglethe notion of hierarchy and
hierarchical ambiguity would thus be toelaborate on the dynamic
between contradictory forces. This is what we willdo next in trying
to make further sense of the relationship betweenverticalization
and horizontalization. In particular, we will discuss andillustrate
the three dynamics that make up our conceptual framework:
loosecoupling, translation, and integration.
Loose CouplingThe consultancy rm provides a good starting point
for a discussion thatbanking. It is expected from the larger
public, especially in times like these ofnancial turbulence. Add to
that, the many regulations monitored bynancial authorities that
demand clear lines of responsibility and authority.Thus, a bank
cannot do away with a formal hierarchy, it seems, and in the
endthere will have to be amix between verticality and
horizontality. The nature ofthis dynamic though, cannot be settled
once and for all. Instead there is anongoing negotiation regarding
the boundaries of managers command andemployees discretion. And
observations of work do conrm that this isthe case.Thus, all cases
discussed above display hierarchical ambiguity. The
consultancy is formally relatively at, and the organizational
rhetoricunderscores this, but there are signs of neo-formal
hierarchies, whereasthe engineering rm and the bank may look quite
hierarchical on thesurface, but trends of customization (in the
Bank) and the complexity of thework push important decisions down
to lower levels where specialized
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.126centers on the notion of loose
coupling. In the consultancy rm, there arerelatively few
hierarchical layers, with each subsidiary manager overseeing
-
a quite large number of employees, who function autonomously in
the courseof daily operations. Because of the large number of
employees under eachmanager, there will inevitably be little direct
contact between subordinate andsuperior in matters that concern
operative work. Management then becomesdistant or detached from the
core processes of work. However, managementstill maintains a
loosely coupled link to this core through overarchingdecisions
regarding assignments, wage setting, and the evaluation of
perfor-mance. In addition, there is the careful work of trying to
inuence values andsense-making in the rm, and such attempts by
management, to dene andreproduce an organizational culture and
identity, emerge from a clearhierarchical position.To give the
reader a more concrete sense of how this culture work plays
out, we can take the example of a manager that was observed in
the morningserving coffee to his subordinates, a very symbolic act
as it conveys thenotion that we are all equals here, which, as the
reader may recall, is oneof the professed values of the rm. The
activity of serving coffee then is atypical example of culture
work, and in addition, it makes clear ourargument here that there
is a loose coupling between the vertical and thehorizontal. Because
when the manager serves coffee, he aims, not directly atthe work
behaviors of subordinates, but instead at their perception of
workby providing value-laden and symbolic cues. Such cues, in turn,
willarguably be taken into account by subordinates as they engage
in operativework, implying an indirect effect of managerial
interventions. So in thisspecic case, what could be the effect?One
message here, as noted above, is obviously the notion of
equality.
Nevertheless, another message embedded in this activity can be
found inhow the manager described his practice. Because when asked
about it, themanager said that his time, unlike that of the
consultants, is nonbillable, andhence, it makes sense that he, not
the consultants, provides this supportiveservice. Taking this
comment into account, we may interpret the practice ofserving
coffee differently. More specically, we may read it as a token of
aperformance-oriented culture, because the manager seems to be
saying thatthere is nothing more important than billing your hours.
In fact, it is soimportant that it makes more sense to have a
manager serving coffee than tohave a subordinate not producing
billable time. Obviously, this message isnot said out loud. Instead
it is conveyed in and through symbolic behaviorsthat feed into
subordinates conception of their work. And in the end, suchsymbolic
practices will affect how subordinates perform their work; they
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 127may not be
overly respectful toward their superiors, but they will make sureto
bill their hours. Or will they?
-
In the management-centered literature, that dominates
contemporarythinking, it is often assumed thatmanagerial
interventions have their intendedeffect (Grey, 1999). To us though,
as indicated in our framework, such anassumption seems problematic,
given that managers presence in the work isbecoming less salient,
and as managers become more and more distant fromoperative
processes, they also become more and more peripheral to theeveryday
existence of employees. Chances are then that subordinates will
notbe as susceptible to managers attempts to inuence them, which
may lead toa weakening of the already loose connection between the
vertical and thehorizontal.To add esh to the idea that subordinates
may ignore or counter mana-
gerial control attempts in the loosely coupled conguration, let
us consider anepisode from the bank case. Here a superior is
observed in a meeting as he istrying to target subordinates and
their autonomous work at a distance, byinstructing the 35 people
present to share their success stories from work withone another.
Arguably, there is a symbolic aspect to this exercise in that
themanager seeks to create a sense of success and competition among
thosepresent (in line with the new market orientation of banks).
Subordinates,however, are not very responsive to themanagers
intervention. They insist ontelling bad stories. As we enter the
episode below, one employee has begun tofollow the managers
exercise, by telling something that resembles a successstory. She
then goes on to say:
Should I give you the bad stuff as well? Albert (the manager)
ignores this comment,
and instead he asks if there is someone else who would like to
share something. When the
room goes quiet, Albert continues: We havent had a meeting for a
long time now, so
there must be plenty of things to share. A quite young man
speaks up telling those
present that one of their customers has sued the bank, and that
he has been to court
giving a testimony, and most likely the matter will be taken to
the next legal instance.
Albert does not comment on this piece of information. Instead he
repeats the question, if
anyone has anything to share. Once again the room goes quiet,
and the next moment
Albert gets started on the rst item on his agenda, and from
there the meeting continues
for an hour without much interaction.
When a manager has 35 people under him/her, like in the example
above, itis difcult to be close to the work that people do and
engage in their everydayissues. Therefore, the manager must manage
at a distance. In this case, themanager does so by trying to create
an upbeat atmosphere, asking people fortheir success stories,
stories that he hopes will spur competition and in theend branch
performance. Employees resist participation in this practice,
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.128however, and the reason, perhaps,
might be that the verticalization attemptclashes with their view of
(horizontal) work.
-
As we enter the episode below, Christian, a project manager, is
following
up the work of a subordinate engineer. As the formally superior
person,Christian is expected to make sure work is completed on
time, and inpractice this often means making sure that people
commit to deadlines. Aswe shall see in the episode below though,
the formal position as managerdoes not seem to help Christian much
in this respect. Instead, the technicalknowledge of an experienced
engineer steps in, and it translates thevertical order into
practical work.
Christian (project manager) follows up Isacs (engineer) work.
Isac says he is not
done, whereby Christian asks about his status and receives a
very technical report.
After a short technical discussion in which Alex (experienced
engineer) is also involved,
Christian asks: When do you think...[you can be nished]? Isac
replies evasively,
looking at Alex: Well, I mean, I can do it on the blocks we have
today, but now we
added some extra stuff soy Christian is about to say something
when Alex chimes in:I guess its rather little, at least its still
the same interface. Isac asks Alex a question
about the power. Alex explains. Then Isac says: Well, sure, I
guess Ill have to add thoseThe example above shows how and why the
connection between thevertical and the horizontal may be
characterized as loose. This is not to saythat there is no link
between these processes at all, because although themanagers
attempt at creating an air of competition seems to fail, themeeting
in itself can be seen as a verticalizing practice. To be sure, the
factthat there is a meeting reminds employees that their work is
subordinated toa vertical logic. Thus, through the recurring event,
that is the meeting, theconnection between the vertical and
horizontal processes is in a wayconrmed, even if the coupling can
be characterized as loose.In sum, the above illustrates loose
coupling as a way of describing an
ongoing process where managers try to latch onto the horizontal
from adistance, through indirect vertical interventions, and where
subordinatesmay counter such attempts, thus weakening an already
loose connectionbetween the vertical and the horizontal.
TranslationThe next verticalhorizontal dynamic to be discussed
is translation. Asnoted, translation may or may not follow the
managerial intention, and toillustrate this variation, we shall
start with an episode from the engineeringcase that shows how the
process of horizontalization may complete thevertical intervention.
After that we discuss a case, where the horizontalseemingly
redirects the vertical.
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 129things.
Christian then asks again when this will happen. Next week in that
case, says
Isac. Alex chimes in again, suggesting a way of taking care of
the issue so that Isac will be
-
able to send off the document already on Monday morning. Isac
seems to think that
sounds ok: Ill try to do it tomorrow then, he says. Good, says
Alex.
This episode illustrates a managers attempt at verticalization
making anemployee commit to a deadline and how this intervention is
subsequentlytranslated into the horizontal practice of solving
technical problems.Christian fails to make Isac commit to a
deadline, whereas Alex, with hisesoteric expertise (Starbuck, 1992)
and practical understanding of thework process, intervenes and does
precisely that which Christian is formallyassigned to do, only by
horizontal means.This type of episode, where an employee steps in
for the manager, offers
insights into the practical effectuation of what the literature
refers to asempowerment and participation, something that is
arguably necessary forcomplex work to be accomplished. Christians
attempt to verticalize isundone by Alex intervention, translated,
and turned into a horizontalpractice. Thus, in this case, the
translation functions as it should from amanagerial perspective.
The horizontal takes over from the vertical, butdoes not resist it.
Instead the horizontal afrms the vertical order byassuming that its
general requirements are legitimate. Or put differently,
itcompletes the vertical ow of control by stepping in and
performing thatwhich is beyond the reach of the formally appointed
manager.The above episode may thus be used to conrm the idea put
forth by
critical scholarship, that even if control in organizations is
decentralized,this does not necessarily mean a shift in the overall
ideology of control it isstill managerial control, only exerted by
unobtrusive means that makeemployees act in the interest of the
organization (e.g., Barker, 1999). Ournext episode, however,
indicates that translation does not necessarily lead tocompletion
of the vertical ow, but may also redirect the managers agenda.As we
enter the episode below, Robert, a bank manager, is asking the
employees present at the meeting to come up with ideas that will
turn thesales statistics that is the result of stock-market
turbulence. Robert believesthat customers get scared whenever there
is a dip in the market, and hewonders how they can prevent them
from selling off their portfolios whenthis happens in the future. I
leave the question completely open, he says,and after this people
start discussing the issue suggested by the manager.Quite soon
though, subordinates have translated and redirected themanagers
initial contention that customers should be encouraged not tosell
off their portfolios.
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.130Peter, the stock-market expert at
the branch, suggests that they should tell people to
have a long-term perspective on their investment, which would
then prevent them from
-
selling off in times of turbulence. People around the table seem
to agree, when Ann all of
a sudden says: The scary thing isyI mean its very difcult,
because you only knowwhats happened historically. Sometimes you
give the advice to remove your money
and it continues to go down. [y] [and] why be in for the whole
down-turn, when you canstep out and then you get back in. Ann
receives support from other employees around
the table, with one person saying: I would never say that to
anyone, Dont do it [sell]
yI had a guy with almost 900 000 in prot. At this point, Robert
steps in: We mustalso consider what the bank recommends, and it
always comes back to the fact that it is
the banks view that should decide what advice we give out. Its
not really our own
[view] [y] It was more one of those questions thrown out there,
he adds. Followingthis comment, Peter steps in and ends the
discussion: But to wrap things up, its very
important really, this thing that Ann points out. That you
shouldnt just sit there
through up and down turns. You should obviously sell if you feel
thaty but that meansthat the customer has to have, not just a
certain air, but a certain interest at least. So
you dont wake up six months later. It takes continuity on their
part as well. Were not
the only ones who should be following the stock-market.
Due to his institutionalized position as chair of the meeting,
the managerin the example above is able to set the agenda. This
agenda is subsequentlytranslated through a horizontal process that,
at rst, appears to completethe vertical process, because what Peter
is suggesting initially would satisfythe managers aim of preventing
people from selling. However, as Ann getsinvolved, the process of
translation takes another turn; it redirects theagenda by making a
point that runs counter to the managers. Ann is sayingthat people
should get out if they can identify an upcoming dip in themarket.
This also seems to be the conclusion as the discussion closes
withPeters nal comment.The above example shows an interaction
between the horizontal and the
vertical that contests the common notion in the management
literature, thatthe vertical somehow determines or controls the
horizontal. Because even ifthe manager is referencing his position
as a formal authority in thebeginning and toward the end of the
episode, he is not treated as such bythose present. Instead, it is
Peter that is placed in a position of (expert)authority, as he
breaks in and summarizes the discussion, without beingcontested by
anyone (not even the manager). Moreover, Peter concludes
thediscussion in a fashion that is contrary to the managers
intention. Orin different words, Peter here steps in for the
manger, but instead ofcompleting his inuence attempt, Peter
redirects it. And he achieves this, byreferencing his operative
knowledge, and concrete experience of the practiceof
banking.Translation thus shows how vertical instructions from a
manager who
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 131acts from a
medium distance are made sense of and effectuated in practiceon the
basis of employees, often superior, understanding of work. This
-
horizontal process may complete or redirect the vertical, but
either waythere is an element of undoing hierarchy. Indeed, in both
cases discussedabove, an employee rather than a manager holds the
initiative. In the case ofcompletion though, the overall managerial
agenda is not challenged, and inthese cases it may therefore be
suspected that there is an indirect form ofcontrol at play, as
described through the dynamic of loose coupling.5 Thepoint we wish
to make here though is that when management is at a mediumdistance
from the work process, being able to give general but not
detailedinstructions, the vertical relies on the horizontal for its
translation. In muchcomplex work, this is necessarily so, since
managers are seldom involvedin or comprehend the operative work to
the extent that their subordinatesdo. It happens, however, that
managers have profound knowledge of theoperative work, which takes
us to the next dynamic that we refer to asintegration.
IntegrationThe two preceding examples show instances when
managers are partly oralmost fully distant from operative work
processes. In certain contexts,however, it will be the case that a
manager is also among the most procientexperts, acting very close
to subordinates work. Another example from theengineering case will
illustrate this. The episode that is depicted below playsout in a
work meeting where Carl (manager) follows up on the work of
anengineer (Eddie). The setting is thus similar to that presented
earlier withChristian, Alex, and Isac. In this case though, the
manager, Carl (in contrastto Christian), makes ample use of both
his practical understanding of thework and his formally superior
position.
Carl asks Eddie how his work is proceeding. Eddie says that he
checked the results after
they made some modications, but doesnt seem quite satised with
them. Carl asks:
Have you looked through this thing with [technical term]? Eddie
replies that he hasnt,
but he is going to measure it. Have you started?, asks Carl.
Eddie says that he has
started but he cant really make it work. Carl then suggests that
it could be the classic
thaty [he explains what the classic means]. Mmy it could bey,
says Eddie.They discuss for a short while, then Carl says I think
this is a bit too slow, and adds
that we have had this action since we got the test results [y]
we have put what we calla C1 on this, so it is a stopper,
Here we have an example where it is difcult to separate the
process ofverticalization from that of horizontalization. Carl
operates in thehorizontal realm because he inserts himself in the
horizontal interaction
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.132that is normally conducted among
the engineers. He talks to Eddie in asimilar way as Alex talked to
Isac in the earlier example of engineering
-
work, that is, he talks to him as an engineer, and more
specically as anexperienced engineer. This is best illustrated by
his use of the term classic.Classic does not only mean that
something is old but that it is remarkableand typical of a certain
problem. Talking about Eddies problem as a classicdenes Carl as
more experienced, and Eddie as a newcomer who lacksexperience.
Otherwise Eddie would know about the classic and alreadyhave
checked if it is causing the problem. All this takes place by
drawing onpractical understanding of work, and not on the formal
vertical order.Nevertheless, Carl also draws on vertical resources.
When he labels the
problem what we call a C1, and a stopper, he departs from
theconstruction of Eddie as a peer in need of advice and shifts to
emphasizinghow Eddie is on the bottom of the ow of production: if
he does not x this,the whole project will come to a standstill, and
Carl knows this because hehas the overview that a manager has.
Carls superior position in the chain ofcommand is also underlined
his reference to action. An action in thisorganization basically
means task or problem. When you have anaction, you are responsible
for solving it, and although Carl is saying thatwe have had the
action for a while, it is clear that Eddie is heldaccountable for
the fact that it is still there.Carl thus translates the vertical
into the horizontal by drawing on
practical understanding of work. However, he also enacts the
vertical in amore traditional chain of command fashion, showing
that he masters thepractice of engineering as well as management.
Thus, he is able to bothmove close to the operative work and to
back off and distance himself. Thisintegration of practices tends
to produce a rather inuential force. Carlseems to have dual
memberships and is both a manager and an engineer. Hisinsights into
the intricacies of engineering work, combined with the fact thathe
is indeed a manager, makes him into something more than a peer,
aprimus inter pares (Rennstam, 2007). As such, he has special
abilities totranslate the vertical into the horizontal and back
again, by himselfrepresenting both aspects at once.The effect of
integration may seem like the dream of every business leader,
and it is true that the combination of formal and expert power
is potentiallymuch stronger than if you practice just one of the
two. Nevertheless, thevertical and horizontal ingredients may also
undermine each other. Anexample from the bank will testify to this.
Here the researcher was able toobserve the struggling of those that
were promoted managers on the basis oftheir expert competence. In
this new role, the expert-manager often used
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 133operative
knowledge to promote his/her managerial agenda. But this did
notalways afford him/her a strengthened position. Instead, the
mixing of logics
-
UNDERSTANDING HIERARCHY INCONTEMPORARY WORK
The present chapter has taken an approach to studying
organizationalhierarchy that helps us go beyond either/or
conceptions that dominate theliterature. That is, the tendency in
the literature to claim either the persistenceof a vertical
hierarchy, or to deny its relevance completely (Lundholm, 2011).By
looking at the dynamics between contrasting organizing principles,
wehave examined how hierarchy is constructed in and through
socialinteraction. Instead of assuming verticality or
horizontality, we havelooked at how the vertical and the horizontal
coexist and interact in theconstruction of work relations. The
result is a view of hierarchy as a strugglebetween vertical and
horizontal forces.On the basis of our approach, we are able to
elaborate on previous attempts
to describe moderate forms of hierarchy (Courpasson, 2000;
Hales, 2002).Our framework proposes that the lite and soft versions
of hierarchy that are typical for the era we live in are the result
of practices that display aresulted in drawn-out discussions, where
neither the expert nor the formalauthority of the manager was
accepted. So instead of being both expert andmanager, the formally
superior person ended up being none of the two.It is easy to see
how different forms of authority can undermine one
another, because when a manager engages in technical talk,
employees willcome to think that they are participating in a
horizontal process, wherecompetence rules. Consequently, they may
not accept or even be aware ofthe switch to a vertical order. This
may happen if the manager is notsuccessful in convincing
subordinates of his/her expert authority. Likewise,the formal
position as manager may undermine the establishment of ahorizontal
order. For example, a manager may try to engage subordinates inan
open discussion, in order to promote multiple perspectives and
richinput. But such a process will be hampered if subordinates are
too aware ofthe formal order, because every attempt by the manager
to exert inuencewill then be treated as an act of formal authority,
killing the discussion.Thus, integration is not necessarily the
most superior way of reconciling thepostdilemma of hierarchy and
nonhierarchy. Balancing between thehorizontal and the vertical is a
sensitive and problematic act.
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.134dynamic between verticalization and
horizontalization. This dynamic, inturn, can be described using the
terms loose coupling, translation, or
-
integration, depending on how distant the manager is from
operative work.Managerial distance is the greatest in the case of
loose coupling, withmanagers limiting themselves to indirect and
often sporadic attempts toinuence work. In translation, the
managers distance to the operative workprocess is smaller, but
managers are still dependent here on knowledgeableemployees, who
translate managers attempts to inuence the pace andcontent of work.
Finally, in the case of integration, there is little
distancebetween themanager and the operative, since managers here
are participatingas experts next to their role as managers. Thus,
loose coupling, translation,and integration describe how hierarchy
is made soft: by either staying faraway, relying on translation, or
on actors that understand the language ofboth verticality and
horizontality, the impression is produced that hierarchyis
soft.Softness or liteness in hierarchy can be seen as an effect of
unobtrusive
vertical practices that to a large extent invite horizontal
practices toparticipate. This idea is not entirely new to
organization studies. However,most previous accounts in this eld
seem to assume that the softness, orunobtrusive control, emanates
from managers, as indicated by the commonfocus in the literature on
managers and their choices/personalities/styles thatlead them to
adopt a certain form of governance. The present account,
incontrast, pays attention to everyday practices, where the
softness comesacross, not so much an effect of managers choices, as
an outcome ofeveryday negotiations between managers and employees,
where the latterparty often has leverage, due to his/her superior
understanding of work.The present account thus aligns with those
who suggest the importance
of soft bureaucracy and unobtrusive forms of control. However,
we haveslightly shifted the focus away from managers, distributing
the agency, bytrying to show how the origin of these new versions
of control resides indynamics between verticalization and
horizontalization. Interestinglyenough, refraining from an
exclusive focus on managers enables us toreect on the role of
managers in contemporary knowledge work. If we startwith the notion
of loose coupling, it appears to conrm the common imageof superiors
in the literature, as managers of meaning, who control
workindirectly, and at a distance, by engaging in cultural
management and normsetting practices (e.g., Kunda, 1992; Ouchi,
1980). The dynamics that weterm translation and integration, in
contrast, depart from this view ofmanagers, displaying them instead
as actors that navigate operative workprocesses. We have shown, for
instance, how managers may use their
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 135operative
knowledge to set in motion productive processes of translation,
orwhen really close to the operative process, they may jump
between
-
vertical and horizontal positions. Our framework thus suggests a
broaderspectrum of managerial inuence in knowledge work than what
is common,a proposition that has been made possible by paying
attention to managerialactivity at varying distances from the work
process.In light of the above, we can contend that studying
hierarchy in
contemporary organizations requires new tools, which we aim to
providehere. Our framework enables a deeper study of hierarchy and
hierarchiza-tion in organizational settings where the conception
and execution of workhave merged. They enable insight into what
managers do as well as whatemployees do. Hierarchy has previously
been understood as precedingpractice, which is potentially why we
have focused so much more on whatmanagers do, without taking
seriously the activities of employees. As a result,research has
reproduced the idea that grandiosemanagerial activities such
asvisionary leadership, culture management, and other distant
initiatives are the guiding forces in work. A focus on practice
indicates that there areother activities, such as translation and
integration, which enable hierarchy topersist despite its sometimes
bad t with knowledge work.Our illustrations paint a dynamic
portrait of the relationship between
the vertical and horizontal. They show how the managerial
initiative (a) maybe backgrounded despite the existence of
organizational policy, (b) may bedependent on the translation of
expert authority, or (c) may becomeintertwined with expert
authority. It thus seems clear to us that the verticalorder, as it
is made present in and through everyday interaction, cannot standon
its own. This interdependency though, between the vertical and
thehorizontal, is rarely recognized, nor is it reected in how
organizationsallocate status and pay. But if we can show that there
is such a dependency,then, maybe, this calls into question the
legitimacy ofmanagerial prerogatives(see, e.g., Parker, 2002). In
any event, we can contend that a practice approachto hierarchy
allows us to see things differently, and to reect on the
manager-centered ideology that dominates much of the existing
literature.Our discussion is thus an attempt to theorize formal
hierarchy while
departing from the ideological understanding that assumes
managerialagency as omnipresent. However, our case also aims to
prevent falling trapto the other danger the opposite of assuming
that managerial control isinsignicant. Instead, we have tried an
alternative route of looking at both/and rather than either/or, and
we have considered how both vertical andhorizontal orders
constantly struggle to institute their own precedence, indynamics
that we have labeled loose coupling, translation, and
integration.
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.136Last, we should stress once again
that we here are zooming in the inter-actional practices of
managers and subordinates. There are also, of course,
-
postbureaucratic turn, (Alvesson & Thompson, 2004), we may
suggest thatsome of its key characteristics are: (a) demands for
horizontalization and
(b) exible movement between vertical and horizontal practices.
At the sametime, the postbureaucratic turn also seems to be
characterized by looselycoupled and often ambiguous verticalization
practices (e.g., managersmanagerial practices that may operate
hierarchically in a more xed way,such as top-management decisions
about strategies, the hiring, promotion,and ring of employees, new
management control systems, etc.
CONCLUSION
Looking at our study from a broader perspective, we are able to
make somecomments regarding the nature of postbureaucracy and
contemporaryknowledge work. Our study partly concurs through the
notion of loosecoupling with the often stated claim that
traditional hierarchical processesof organizing t badly with
knowledge work. Instead, such work is oftenmanaged indirectly, and
at a distance, that is, through efforts to lead byvalues and
meanings and output control, rather than supervision of
work.Nevertheless, we also go beyond this claim by showing that
managersdistance to work varies. In addition by considering our
three dynamicsbetween verticalization and horizontalization in a
historical light we mayposit that there has been a change in the
nature of the managerial distanceover time. In the bureaucratic
era, social distance did not exclude epistemicproximity. On the
contrary, it was quite typical that distant managersdesigned work
tasks in detail. Today, in settings where work tasks havebecome
more complex and require nonroutine problem solving, socialdistance
tends to produce epistemic distance. This is arguably why
thevertical has to interact with the horizontal through loosely
coupledarrangements, processes of translation by knowledgeable
workers, or primusinter pares who are able to navigate in both
vertical and horizontal regimes.Our conceptual framework
furthermore suggests that the boundary betweenthe vertical and the
horizontal often is blurred, especially in the case oftranslation
and integration where it often takes careful observation
andthoughtful interpretation to claim that organizational members
participatein verticalization or horizontalization.So, to the
extent then that we nd it reasonable to take seriously a
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 137serving coffee
to subordinates), through which the vertical approaches
andinteracts with the horizontal.
-
participation in a verticalhorizontal dynamic requires tolerance
forambiguity and unclarity in work. This tolerance in turn may be
achievedNOTES
1. First authorship is shared between Lundholm and Rennstam.2.
This means that an organization can be said to be hierarchical
because of the
extent to which its members are engaged in verticalization. One
could also talk abouta high verticalization/horizontalization
ratio.3. It should be noted that translation may also work the
other way around, when
management makes sense of input from the operative core by
translating it into theirbroader view of a situation.4. For
methodological and other details about the IT consultancy rm study,
see
Alvesson (1995); for the engineering study, see Rennstam (2007);
and for the bank,see Lundholm (2011).5. This also tells us that an
empirical episode may bear traces of different
hierarchy dynamics. That is, the dynamics we present here are
not mutually exclusivein practice, although there is a point in
separating them analytically.
REFERENCESthrough identication, that is by picking up
organizational or occupationalidentities, which then provide the
individual with meaning, therebyfunctioning as a distraction from
the ambiguities of work. But tolerancemay also be achieved through
knowledgeable engagement in translationprocesses, undoing the
vertical, which we have seen examples of in the bankand the
engineering rm. This involves being knowledgeable of the
workprocess to an extent that enables disambiguation and
clarication through asense of craftsmanship, a sense of knowing
what one is doing.The good organization thus demands people that
are capable of
producing shifting and situationally sensitive work relations,
so that therecan be a exible interplay between contrasting
organizing principles. Anincreasing number of organizational
members are thus involved in horizontalas well as vertical
practices. Future research will hopefully reveal more aboutthe
consequences of such demands, for organizations and for people.The
blurring of boundaries and increased unclarity also has
consequencesfor practitioners of knowledge work. For example,
skilful and meaningful
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.138Abrahamsson, B. (2007). Hierarki:
om ordning, makt och kristallisering (1st ed.). Malmo: Liber.
Alvesson, M. (1995). Management of knowledge intensive
companies. Berlin: De Gruyter.
-
Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 139Alvesson, M.
(2004). Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive rms. Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Alvesson, M., & Thompson, P. (2004). Post-bureaucracy? In S.
Ackroyd, R. Batt,
P. Thompson & P. Tolbert (Eds.), Oxford handbook of work and
organization.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barker, J. R. (1999). The discipline of teamwork. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Blaug, R. (2009). Why is there hierarchy? Democracy and the
question of organisational form.
Critical Review of International Social and Political
Philosophy, 12(1), 8599.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning
and communities of practice:
Toward a unied view of working, learning, and innovation.
Organization Science, 2(1),
4057.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes team work:
Group effectiveness research
from the shop oor to the executive suite. Journal of Management,
23(3), 239291.
[Special Issue]
Courpasson, D. (2000). Managerial strategies of domination:
Power in soft bureaucracies.
Organization Studies, 21(1), 141161.
Diefenbach, T., & Sillince, J. (2011). Formal and informal
hierarchy in different types of
organizations. Organization Studies, 32(11), 15151537.
Fairhurst, G. (2008). Discursive leadership: A communication
alternative to leadership
psychology. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 510521.
Grey, C. (1999). We are all managers now; We always were: On the
development and demise
of management. Journal of Management Studies, 36(5), 561585.
Gronn, P. (2002).Distributed leadership as a unit of
analysis.LeadershipQuarterly, 13(4), 423451.
Hales, C. (2002). Bureaucracy-lite and continuities in
managerial work. British Journal of
Management, 13(1), 5166.
Hop, H. M. (2006). Post-bureaucracy and Webers modern
bureaucrat. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 19(1), 821.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Basic
books.
Kuhn, T. (2008). A communicative theory of the rm: Developing an
alternative perspective on
intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships.
Organization Studies, 28(08/
09), 12271254.
Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in
a high-tech corporation.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lundholm, S. (2011). Meta-managing: A study on how superiors and
subordinates manage their
relationship in everyday work. Lund: Lund Business Press.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
McPhee, R. D., & Poole, M. S. (2001). Organizational
structures and congurations. In
F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of
organizational
communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp.
503543). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies and clans.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,
129141.
Parker, M. (2002). Against management: Organization in the age
of managerialism. Cambridge:
Polity.Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared
leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
-
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices A
development in culturalist
theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243263.
Rennstam, J. (2007). Engineering work: On peer reviewing as a
method of horizontal control.
Lund: Lund Business Press.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1947). Management
and the worker. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Rosen, M. (1989). Breakfast at Spiros. Journal of Management,
11(2), 3148.
Schatzki, T. (2001). Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K.
Knorr-Cetina & E. von Savigny
SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.140(Eds.), The practice turn in
contemporary theory (pp. 114). London: Routledge.
Senge, P. (2004). The leaders new work: Building learning
organizations. In K. Starkey,
S. Tempest & A. McKinlay (Eds.), How organizations learn:
Managing the search for
knowledge (2nd ed.). London: Thomson Learning.
Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal
consequences of work in the new
capitalism. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The
management of meaning. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257274.
Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge intensive rms.
Journal of Management
Studies, 29, 713740.
Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory
processes/paradoxical practices: Communication
and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management
Communication Quarterly,
14(3), 349407.
Styhre, A. (2001). Kaizen, ethics, and the care of the
operations: Management after
empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), 795810.
Taylor, F. W. (1911/1998). The principles of scientic
management. New York, NY: Harper &
Brother.
Thevenot, L. (2001). Pragmatic regimes governing the engagement
with the world. In
T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina & E. v. Savigny (Eds.), The
practice turn in
contemporary theory (pp. 5673). London: Routledge.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity
leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era.
Leadership Quarterly, 18(4),
298318.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic
organization. New York, NY: Free Press.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely
coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21(March), 119.