Configurable Bureaucracy and the Making of Modular Man

Abstract

The flexibility of people in modern societies rests upon their capacity to divide themselves into separate modules of thought and action, and deploy them in ways that fit their purposes. The practice of ‘informatizing’ work by converting tasks into software-based processes entails the modular design of work, because software has a modular form. We use the concept of modularity to analyse the implications of informatization in the empirical context of a ‘shared service centre’ providing professional services. We make three contributions. First, informatization enlarges the scope for organizational flexibility, because the organization can be treated as a configuration of modules which can be reshuffled to suit changing circumstances. Second, employees must attempt to deploy enhanced modular capabilities, by executing any given set of processes, in a flexible, unemotional and time-efficient fashion. Third, given the ability to informatize complex service work, and the existence of organizational templates which accommodate it, the modular design and management of other services may become more common.

Identity Work and Organizational Identification

“…). People, it seems, may discursively manage a variety of identification relationships (both positive and negative) with their organizations (Elsbach and Kramer ; Hirst and Humphreys , ; Toyoki and Brown ; Tracey and Phillips 2016).…”

Agency and Institutions inOrganization Studies

“…Stated alternatively, modular capacities and individual orientations (such as habit, training and socialization) connect individuals to different institutions and fields of practice. Hirst and Humphreys (2015) directly address the question of agency and social change through the concept of role modularity. Building on the work of Gellner (1994) and Kallinikos (2003), they argue that the rise of a modern rationalized substitutable modular person fundamentally alters how social and institutional change occurs.…”

“…Building on the work of Gellner (1994) and Kallinikos (2003), they argue that the rise of a modern rationalized substitutable modular person fundamentally alters how social and institutional change occurs. Role modularity, in the sense discussed by Hirst and Humphreys (2015), is characterized by the way actors connect to different locations and contexts. Actors express forms of agency according to the contextual particularities of their public, private and working lives.…”

“…Hence, today Galileo could be both believer and scientist. Both Kallinikos (2003) and Hirst and Humphreys (2015) suggest that the prerequisites of change are amplified by the ever-present, unobtrusive modularity of instrumental action and work-related roles, and partially detached from the wills and whims of individuals. Individuals are thus susceptible to change through the modular nature of their work (which is institutionally embedded) without involving the deeper layers of their personality.…”

“…Our selection includes the following articles: Barley and Tolbert (1997) ;Labatut, Aggeri and Girard (2012); Lounsbury and Crumley (2007); Scott (2008a); and Wijen and Ansari (2007). In addition, we feature two papers that do not explicitly adopt an institutional perspective but deal with the subject of how individuals are tied to organizations and institutions: Hirst and Humphreys (2015) and Kallinikos (2003).…”