Are we living in a post‐bureaucratic epoch?

Abstract

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.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 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. AbstractPurpose -According to an extensive and growing literature, we are in the twilight of bureaucracy. The labels applied to the supposed new organizational form include: post-bureaucratic; post-modern; post-hierarchical; and the virtual organisation. The purpose of this paper is to consider the various claims for "epochal" change by evaluating the supporting and contrary evidence. Design/methodology/approach -The paper draws on evidence on the reform of the UK Civil Service over the last few decades to show the intensification of bureaucracy. Findings -The paper takes issue with the "epochalist" visions of sudden transformation which have underpinned much of the comment on post-bureaucracy, arguing that the concept of post-bureaucracy is analytically blind to the diversity and complexity of contemporary organizational change. Originality/value -Locating the debate on post-bureaucracy in the broader political economy of Neo-Conservatism reveals an authoritarian dimension which has been absent from most commentaries.

Managers as consultants: The hybridity and tensions of neo-bureaucratic management

“…Likewise, McSweeney (2006) and Harrison and Smith (2003) identify an intensification of bureaucracy through the spread of measurement and regulation in the public sector for example.…”

Responsible Leadership for Multinational Enterprises in Bottom of Pyramid Countries: The Knowledge of Local Managers

“…The authors showed that in foreign market operations the value of local managers comprises not only their traditional market value but also their institutional, community or social capital (Briand and Bellmare, 2006;Coleman, 1990;Hancock, 2006;McSweeney, 2006) value. Responsible leadership needs to integrate and combine the complementary skills of expatriate and local managers, satisfying both the need for the local knowledge (Hull, 2006;Spender and Scherer, 2007) provided by the local foreign-market managers, as well as the headquarters, and home office's need for a certain element of control exercised through the expatriate managers.…”

“…Internationalisation and the value of local managers, especially in the context of globalisation, require the multinational enterprises (MNEs) to possess a deep understanding of the complexity of different institutions, cultures and economic systems (McSweeney, 2006;Spender and Scherer, 2007). Such understandings, however, need to be applied and adjusted in great detail to the unique situation of the bottom of pyramid countries in the twenty-first century.…”

“…The psychological literature, in particular, recognised that such explanations were deeply rooted in the perceptions of individuals and of the members of different cultural groups in terms of their ethnocentricities, stereotypes, prejudices and the like (Hancock, 2006;McGuire and Hutchings, 2006;McSweeney, 2006). For example, it has been empirically shown that the perceptions within a cultural group of foreign places and peoples are often clearly defined and quite uniformly held along determinable axes (Briand and Bellemare 2006;Foss, 2007).…”

Rationalizing Creativity—Rationalizing Public Service: Is Scheduling Management Fit for the Digital Era?

“…It has been argued that Weber's (1978) model of bureaucracy is not relevant in the current socioeconomic context (see Alvesson & Thompson, 2005, p. 486;Courpasson & Reed, 2004, p. 7;Höpfl, 2006, p. 8;McSweeney, 2006). However, despite significant changes in organizational structures and practices, particularly since the 1970s, Weber's bureaucracy model is still a relevant and valuable analytical tool.…”