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
- Literature review
- Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Team
- EXAMPLE
- Sewell's Criticism
- Conclusion
Objectives and Key Themes
This literature review analyzes James Barker's 1993 article, "Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams," examining the concept of concertive control within self-managing teams. The review explores the consequences of shifting control from management to workers, the impact of increased workforce involvement, and the differences between bureaucratic and concertive control. It also addresses criticisms of Barker's work and its lasting impact on the discussion of organizational control.
- Concertive control in self-managing teams
- Consequences of shifting organizational control to workers
- Comparison of bureaucratic and concertive control
- Criticisms of Barker's model of concertive control
- The enduring influence of Barker's work on organizational communication studies
Chapter Summaries
Literature review: This section introduces James Barker's 1993 article, "Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams," which investigates concertive control—a form of organizational control where workers, rather than management, exert significant influence. The review highlights the article's focus on the consequences of shifting control to workers and the comparison between this new form of control and traditional bureaucratic control.
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Team: This chapter delves into Barker's study of "ISE Communications," a self-managing team. Barker uses Tompkins and Cheney's model of concertive control, demonstrating how shared values within the team evolve into norms and rules, ultimately creating a system of control. The analysis reveals how workers identify with both the organization and their team, leading to increased overall control. Barker's observation of "peer management" highlights a less obvious yet powerful form of control stemming from value consensus, resulting in a tightening of Weber's "iron cage."
EXAMPLE: This section provides a detailed example from Barker's study, illustrating the process by which values become formalized rules within the self-managing team at ISE Communications. It elaborates on the three phases identified by Barker: "Consolidation and Value Consensus," "Emergence of Normative Rules," and "Stabilisation and Formalisation of the Rules," showcasing how the team's shared values transform into a self-imposed system of control that surpasses traditional forms of control in terms of impact on individual team members.
Sewell's Criticism: This part critiques Barker's depiction of concertive control as solely negative, highlighting that rules can also protect workers. Sewell challenges the "tightening of the iron cage" interpretation, noting Weber's ambiguity on the concept. This section also addresses criticisms of Barker's three-phase model as overly simplistic, and includes Barker's own later reflections on his 1993 article and its primary objectives: to provoke discussion and offer a conceptual contribution to control in contemporary organizations.
Keywords
Concertive control, self-managing teams, organizational control, bureaucratic control, peer management, communication, shared values, norms, rules, Weber's iron cage, organizational communication, teamwork, empirical research.
FAQ: Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
What is the main focus of this literature review?
This literature review analyzes James Barker's 1993 article, "Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams," focusing on the concept of concertive control within self-managing teams. It examines the consequences of shifting control from management to workers, the differences between bureaucratic and concertive control, and criticisms of Barker's work.
What is concertive control?
Concertive control is a form of organizational control where workers, rather than management, exert significant influence. It arises from shared values within a team that evolve into norms and rules, creating a system of self-imposed control.
What are the key themes explored in the review?
Key themes include concertive control in self-managing teams, the consequences of shifting organizational control to workers, a comparison of bureaucratic and concertive control, criticisms of Barker's model of concertive control, and the lasting impact of Barker's work on organizational communication studies.
What is the significance of Barker's study of "ISE Communications"?
Barker's study of ISE Communications, a self-managing team, illustrates how shared values within the team transform into a self-imposed system of control, demonstrating the concept of concertive control and its implications. The team's self-regulation, stemming from value consensus, results in a "tightening of the iron cage," a concept borrowed from Weber's theories.
How does the review describe the three phases of concertive control development?
The review describes Barker's three phases: "Consolidation and Value Consensus," "Emergence of Normative Rules," and "Stabilisation and Formalisation of the Rules." These phases illustrate the transformation of shared values into a formalized system of self-control within the team.
What criticisms are leveled against Barker's work?
Sewell's criticism challenges the solely negative portrayal of concertive control, arguing that rules can also protect workers. The simplicity of Barker's three-phase model is also questioned. The review includes Barker's own later reflections on the work and its primary objective: to stimulate discussion and offer a conceptual contribution to control in contemporary organizations.
What are the key differences between bureaucratic and concertive control?
Bureaucratic control is a top-down approach where management exerts control, while concertive control is a bottom-up approach where control emerges from shared values and norms within a self-managing team. The review contrasts these two forms of control to highlight the shift in power dynamics and the different mechanisms used to achieve control.
What is the overall conclusion of the literature review?
The review comprehensively examines Barker's influential work on concertive control, analyzing its strengths, weaknesses, and lasting impact on the understanding of organizational control and communication within self-managing teams. It highlights the complexities of shifting control from management to workers and the resulting implications for organizational dynamics.
What are the key words associated with this study?
Key words include: Concertive control, self-managing teams, organizational control, bureaucratic control, peer management, communication, shared values, norms, rules, Weber's iron cage, organizational communication, teamwork, empirical research.
- Quote paper
- Candy Lange (Author), 2006, Literature Review Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Team, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/63609
