Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Team by James Barker (1993) deals with a type of organisational control which gained more and more recognition amongst theorists of organisational and management theory in recent years - concertive control. Barker’s article attempts to give answers to questions like: What are the consequences when the locus of control within an organisation shifts from the management to the workers themselves? What are the consequences of an increased degree of workforce involvement? And, in which way does bureaucratic and concertive control influence members of an organisation differently? In this context, the author provides the reader with a rather unilateral picture of how concertive control influences members of an organisation.
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Team marks the first substantial study in a field where still “very little empirical knowledge” exists “of how self-managing teams construct new and functional forms of control and how these forms compare with how we have conceptualised control in the past” (Barker, 2004).
Table of Contents
1. Literature review
2. Concept of control strategies
3. Analysis of concertive control
3.1 Phases of self-organisation
4. Critical perspectives
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This work aims to examine the mechanisms of concertive control in self-managing teams, exploring how shared values transition into rigid normative rules that impact workforce dynamics and organizational performance.
- The evolution of control strategies in modern organizations.
- The shift of control from management to the collective workforce.
- Three-phase development of self-organized team values and norms.
- Critical reflections on the consequences of peer-based management.
Excerpt from the Book
EXAMPLE
The workers identify themselves not only with the organisation anymore, but also with their work team. The goals and rules of each source (organisation and team) overlay and, therefore, increase the total amount of organisational control (Gossett, 2006). Thus, the employees have created their own rigid system of control which has a stronger impact on the individual team member than any other known form of traditional control, such as hierarchical or bureaucratic control. Barker explains that “peer management” (p. 433), in that manner he observed it at ISE Communications, leads to a form of control which is less obvious and more powerful, as it is a result of the workers value consensus. The author concludes that the iron cage of control (Weber, 1947) becomes tightened.
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Team provides an in-depth ethnographic account, due to the author’s thorough collection and analysis of data. According to Barker, one can extract three main phases members of self-organised teams have to pass through during their process of establishing shared values and, later on, manifested norms and rules. Phase One, “Consolidation and Value Consensus” (p.419), marks the changing process into self-managing teams and comes along with the procedure of reaching value consensus amongst the workers to control their individual and collective work. Then, during Phase Two: “Emergence of Normative Rules” (p.424), value-based assumptions become objective and rationalised rules that all team members have to accept and obey. Finally, the “Stabilisation and Formalisation of the Rules” (p.427) follows in Phase Three. The employees end up not only monitoring their own performance, but also they incessantly control the performance of other members of their group.
However, Barker’s article draws predominantly negative consequences of concertive control for workers of an organisation. In this context, he even refers to the concept of management by stress to underline his perception.
Summary of Chapters
1. Literature review: Introduces James Barker’s 1993 study on concertive control, setting the stage for analyzing shifting loci of power within organizations.
2. Concept of control strategies: Outlines the historical framework of organizational control, including simple, technological, and bureaucratic strategies as defined by Edwards.
3. Analysis of concertive control: Details how workers in self-managing teams replace traditional hierarchy with shared values that evolve into formal, enforceable norms.
3.1 Phases of self-organisation: Breaks down the specific development process from initial value consensus to the final stabilization and formalization of group-imposed rules.
4. Critical perspectives: Reviews critiques by scholars like Sewell who argue that Barker’s model may oversimplify the protective benefits of group rules versus their constraining nature.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the lasting significance of Barker's research in ongoing academic discourse regarding organizational power and communication.
Keywords
Concertive control, Self-managing teams, Organizational theory, Peer management, Iron cage, Value consensus, Normative rules, Workforce involvement, Management by stress, Ethnographic research, Bureaucratic control, Teamwork, Communication structure, Workplace surveillance, Organizational power.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The work focuses on the concept of concertive control, exploring how control shifts from management to self-managed teams in modern organizations.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The key themes include organizational communication, the transformation of peer-led work environments, and the power dynamics inherent in self-managing teams.
What is the central research question?
The research asks what consequences arise when the locus of control shifts from management to the workers themselves and how this impacts individual team members.
Which methodology is employed in the original study?
The original study utilizes an in-depth ethnographic approach to observe and analyze the real-world application of concertive control within an organization.
What does the main body of the work address?
It addresses the transition from informal group values to rigid, rationalized norms and the subsequent increase in peer surveillance.
What characterizes the key terminology of this paper?
The paper is defined by terms like concertive control, value consensus, peer management, and the tightening of the iron cage.
How do team members transition into self-management?
They pass through three phases: Consolidation and Value Consensus, the Emergence of Normative Rules, and the Stabilisation and Formalisation of Rules.
What is the criticism regarding the concept of the iron cage?
Critics argue that while Barker views the iron cage as a negative constraint, it can also serve as a protective mechanism for workers against bullying or tyranny.
Why is the term "management by stress" mentioned?
It is used by Barker to highlight the negative side effects of peer-enforced control, where team members incessantly monitor one another's performance.
- Quote paper
- Candy Lange (Author), 2006, Literature Review Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Team, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/63609
