- Email: [email protected]
Res pyramiderna. Om frihedsskapande hierarkier och tillplattningens slaveri, Östen Ohlsson and Björn Rombach; Svenska Förlaget, Stockholm, 1998, 231 pp.
Scaman*268*Binni*VVC*BG
Book reviews / Scand. J. Mgmt. 17 (2001) 397}407
403
audiences: Alvesson's and Billing's as an introductory text and a reference work for advanced scholars wanting a review of the pros and cons of a particular approach; Gherardi's as a book to return to * not just in order to try to grasp what she actually says * but to let her rich and unconventional approach inspire one's own research. Boel Berner Department of Technology and Social Change, Linko( ping University 581 83 Linko( ping, Sweden PII: S 0 9 5 6 - 5 2 2 1 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 4 - 2
Res pyramiderna. Om frihedsskapande hierarkier och tillplattningens slaveri, OG sten Ohlsson and BjoK rn Rombach; Svenska FoK rlaget, Stockholm, 1998, 231 pp. It could be argued that this is not one but two books within the same covers. The "rst one is a pamphlet. It proclaims that the delayering of modern organizations is based on wrong premises and that its prophets are false. It is consciously polemical (p. 217), fun to read and rather engaging. The second book is more of an introductory textbook to organization theory. It takes us many places: back in history to the Egyptian pyramids; to the industrial cradle in England; into modern hospital and local administration; to our intellectual roots in Max Weber's treatment of bureaucracy; to the Catholic Church; and to the fundamental questions in economics and organizational theory (e.g. why organizations exist). It is an up-to-date textbook in the sense that it repeats the current conjectures of a learned treatise. While quite instructive in its individual parts, Ohlsson and Rombach fail to add it all up to a coherent perspective on organizations. Furthermore, they fail to convince me that a pamphlet and a textbook go well together between the same covers. The title and the style of argument suggest that the authors' hearts lie with the pamphlet, and I will concentrate on that part below. Ohlsson and Rombach claim that the world is more predictable than we are willing to admit. Their book itself may prove the point, since nothing is as certain as the emergence of a counter-position to any successful thesis. The delayering thesis has become the received wisdom, not least in the Scandinavian democracies. One of its iconic texts is Jan Carlzon's book, Riv pyramiderna (which translates into Demolish the Pyramids). Now that Carlzon has fallen from power and position, it is time to challenge the delayering thesis and to deconstruct its foundations. That is what Ohlsson and Rombach set out to do * claiming that hierarchies liberate and that delayering enslaves. It is obvious that the authors perceive themselves as embarking on a provocative mission that will challenge a fair amount of common-sense thinking in contemporary society. They aim to destroy the false prophets of delayering (who seemingly include all the rest of us) and to change the world. In Peter Drucker's de"nition a change agent is a monomaniac with a mission. The authors are self-declared monomaniacs in their attempt to argue contrary to the received wisdom (p. 216). I presume that their
Scaman*268*VVC*BG
404
Book reviews / Scand. J. Mgmt. 17 (2001) 397}407
mission is not only to destroy false prophets, but also in the end to be accredited as the new prophets of more, not less, organization. The "rst part of the mission is achieved quite successfully, the second less so. I have two quarrels with them in that connection, one concerning fuzzy logic, the other concerning a fuzzy morality. Delayering is customarily justi"ed on the grounds that the world is becoming an increasingly complex and uncertain place. Under such conditions, the traditional, hierarchical ways of organizing and managing are rendered ine!ective. However, say Ohlsson and Rombach, it is a myth that the rate of change is faster than before. On the contrary, no age has ever been more stable than our own. Likewise, it is a myth that complexity is increasing. On the contrary, contemporary reality is demysti"ed, standardised and much better understood than earlier realities were. Finally, the emergence of a knowledge-based society is a myth. You can survive better, claim Ohlsson and Rombach, on less knowledge today than yesterday. Thus, the delayering solution, propagated widely by consultants, management researchers and saved practitioners, is seemingly not occasioned by the alleged problem because that problem does not exist. After this frontal attack on the ideology of the delayering movement, Ohlsson and Rombach attack the delayering solution per se. They "nd that it is a label attached to a loose collection of rather di!erent types of restructuring, such as ISO, TQM, BPR and JIT. These types of restructuring have little to do with the e!ects in terms of fewer hierarchical levels or the ratio of subordinates to managers. And the acclaimed e!ects of such restructuring, in terms of e$ciency, customer focus, democracy and employee satisfaction, are questionable at best. Delayered organizations function in a way that makes them best suited to stable, simple and less knowledge-intensive conditions. The logic of the argument appears in condensed form midway through the book when the authors claim to have shown that the `common type of diagnosis is often wrong and that the treatment prescribed does not cure the diseases that were wrongly diagnoseda (p. 142 * my translation). This is where the authors lose me. After all, is this not an argument for delayering? The false prophets have the right solution, and only their explanation is wrong. The delayered organization is well suited to stable, simple and less knowledge-intensive environments, and that is what the authors have claimed as characterising the present epoch. Who cares that the treatment does not cure a disease that was wrongly diagnosed, so long as it is adequate in the patient's current condition? Ohlsson and Rombach have been in academia for a long time, a fact that allegedly entitles them to care most about the e!ects on their readers of their analysis. `Have we said something provocative?a (p. 125 * my translation). Yes, indeed. Such fuzzy logic does provoke us, but it fails to convince! I expected experience to carry other types of obligations than simply to be provocative, and I "nd the morality of the whole endeavour somewhat troublesome. Let me quote at some length: Book titles are di$cult things2. We have provided no collection of arguments for the proponents of re-erecting the pyramids, nor any drawing for those who might want to do the re-erecting. If the truth must out, we are not even particularly interested in whether or how pyramids should be re-erected. Sorry if we promised something else (p. 185 * my translation).
Scaman*268*Binni*VVC*BG
Book reviews / Scand. J. Mgmt. 17 (2001) 397}407
405
If the authors do not intend their book's title to be taken seriously, how can a reader be blamed for not taking the rest of it seriously? To my mind, a book is the enactment of an implicit trust relationship between an author and the readers. The trust is built on the fact that words are used to convey the understanding of the author. The trust is not endangered by the obvious fact that words may be ambiguous and communicated meanings obscure. However, the trust is betrayed when the authors are uninterested in the communicated message. It amounts to arrogance to admit openly to such a betrayal. When they disclaim any intention to stand by the position they have advanced (p. 215), we begin to understand the game: The delayering prophets are false. We can be false too! There is a more interesting message to gain from the argument, provided that the game is being played for real. When the book is translated into English (which I think it will be and deserves to be) then choose a copy-editor who is not `positive to everything we said and everything we wrotea (p. 8 * my translation). Such indulgence in the short run produces pains in the longer run, also for the readers. A more critical copy-editor would reduce the number of cute but completely super#uous parentheses (see almost any page), the intimidating insights into the authors' driving skills, sailing preferences, networks of friends and former students (e.g. p. 120), the most conspicuous cases of tautology (e.g. p. 210), and the worst examples of their free associations (e.g. p. 151). We are told that when the authors give talks to middle managers they receive a standing ovation even before the talk begins. Some take the message seriously and see renewed hope in the re-erection of organizational pyramids. In the process they are willing to grant power and glory to new prophets. But in terms of hopes, my sympathies still lie with the delayering movement. Resource e$ciency, democracy, customer focus and the realisation of human capabilities are in any case vague dreams, the pursuit of which will require lots of organizing. Taken as a corrective to the necessary coordination and control in organizations, delayering seems to me to accord with these dreams. Hierarchies will not disappear, and control and coordination will remain part of all social endeavours. But this does not justify promoting pyramids as the solution. I still tend to believe that `Riv pyramidernaa has more to o!er than `Res pyramidernaa * as a programme and as a book. But while I do not join the middle managers in their standing ovation, and will hold on to the delayering dream a little longer, I willingly grant that the book provides engaging reading. Certainly, engagement is often worth more than agreement. It is also a virtue in its own right to say things that nobody else is saying these days. New ideas need to be explored, even if at a "rst glance they appear to be stupid. They certainly need to be further explored in spite of reviews that do not exactly encourage such persistence. Hopefully, my critical review will not silence deviant voices in a "eld so bored by received wisdom, but will instead engage Ohlsson and Rombach in a new round of exploration of the relayering proposition. Kristian Kreiner Department of Organization and Industrial Sociology Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark PII: S 0 9 5 6 - 5 2 2 1 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 5 - 4
Book reviews / Scand. J. Mgmt. 17 (2001) 397}407
403
audiences: Alvesson's and Billing's as an introductory text and a reference work for advanced scholars wanting a review of the pros and cons of a particular approach; Gherardi's as a book to return to * not just in order to try to grasp what she actually says * but to let her rich and unconventional approach inspire one's own research. Boel Berner Department of Technology and Social Change, Linko( ping University 581 83 Linko( ping, Sweden PII: S 0 9 5 6 - 5 2 2 1 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 4 - 2
Res pyramiderna. Om frihedsskapande hierarkier och tillplattningens slaveri, OG sten Ohlsson and BjoK rn Rombach; Svenska FoK rlaget, Stockholm, 1998, 231 pp. It could be argued that this is not one but two books within the same covers. The "rst one is a pamphlet. It proclaims that the delayering of modern organizations is based on wrong premises and that its prophets are false. It is consciously polemical (p. 217), fun to read and rather engaging. The second book is more of an introductory textbook to organization theory. It takes us many places: back in history to the Egyptian pyramids; to the industrial cradle in England; into modern hospital and local administration; to our intellectual roots in Max Weber's treatment of bureaucracy; to the Catholic Church; and to the fundamental questions in economics and organizational theory (e.g. why organizations exist). It is an up-to-date textbook in the sense that it repeats the current conjectures of a learned treatise. While quite instructive in its individual parts, Ohlsson and Rombach fail to add it all up to a coherent perspective on organizations. Furthermore, they fail to convince me that a pamphlet and a textbook go well together between the same covers. The title and the style of argument suggest that the authors' hearts lie with the pamphlet, and I will concentrate on that part below. Ohlsson and Rombach claim that the world is more predictable than we are willing to admit. Their book itself may prove the point, since nothing is as certain as the emergence of a counter-position to any successful thesis. The delayering thesis has become the received wisdom, not least in the Scandinavian democracies. One of its iconic texts is Jan Carlzon's book, Riv pyramiderna (which translates into Demolish the Pyramids). Now that Carlzon has fallen from power and position, it is time to challenge the delayering thesis and to deconstruct its foundations. That is what Ohlsson and Rombach set out to do * claiming that hierarchies liberate and that delayering enslaves. It is obvious that the authors perceive themselves as embarking on a provocative mission that will challenge a fair amount of common-sense thinking in contemporary society. They aim to destroy the false prophets of delayering (who seemingly include all the rest of us) and to change the world. In Peter Drucker's de"nition a change agent is a monomaniac with a mission. The authors are self-declared monomaniacs in their attempt to argue contrary to the received wisdom (p. 216). I presume that their
Scaman*268*VVC*BG
404
Book reviews / Scand. J. Mgmt. 17 (2001) 397}407
mission is not only to destroy false prophets, but also in the end to be accredited as the new prophets of more, not less, organization. The "rst part of the mission is achieved quite successfully, the second less so. I have two quarrels with them in that connection, one concerning fuzzy logic, the other concerning a fuzzy morality. Delayering is customarily justi"ed on the grounds that the world is becoming an increasingly complex and uncertain place. Under such conditions, the traditional, hierarchical ways of organizing and managing are rendered ine!ective. However, say Ohlsson and Rombach, it is a myth that the rate of change is faster than before. On the contrary, no age has ever been more stable than our own. Likewise, it is a myth that complexity is increasing. On the contrary, contemporary reality is demysti"ed, standardised and much better understood than earlier realities were. Finally, the emergence of a knowledge-based society is a myth. You can survive better, claim Ohlsson and Rombach, on less knowledge today than yesterday. Thus, the delayering solution, propagated widely by consultants, management researchers and saved practitioners, is seemingly not occasioned by the alleged problem because that problem does not exist. After this frontal attack on the ideology of the delayering movement, Ohlsson and Rombach attack the delayering solution per se. They "nd that it is a label attached to a loose collection of rather di!erent types of restructuring, such as ISO, TQM, BPR and JIT. These types of restructuring have little to do with the e!ects in terms of fewer hierarchical levels or the ratio of subordinates to managers. And the acclaimed e!ects of such restructuring, in terms of e$ciency, customer focus, democracy and employee satisfaction, are questionable at best. Delayered organizations function in a way that makes them best suited to stable, simple and less knowledge-intensive conditions. The logic of the argument appears in condensed form midway through the book when the authors claim to have shown that the `common type of diagnosis is often wrong and that the treatment prescribed does not cure the diseases that were wrongly diagnoseda (p. 142 * my translation). This is where the authors lose me. After all, is this not an argument for delayering? The false prophets have the right solution, and only their explanation is wrong. The delayered organization is well suited to stable, simple and less knowledge-intensive environments, and that is what the authors have claimed as characterising the present epoch. Who cares that the treatment does not cure a disease that was wrongly diagnosed, so long as it is adequate in the patient's current condition? Ohlsson and Rombach have been in academia for a long time, a fact that allegedly entitles them to care most about the e!ects on their readers of their analysis. `Have we said something provocative?a (p. 125 * my translation). Yes, indeed. Such fuzzy logic does provoke us, but it fails to convince! I expected experience to carry other types of obligations than simply to be provocative, and I "nd the morality of the whole endeavour somewhat troublesome. Let me quote at some length: Book titles are di$cult things2. We have provided no collection of arguments for the proponents of re-erecting the pyramids, nor any drawing for those who might want to do the re-erecting. If the truth must out, we are not even particularly interested in whether or how pyramids should be re-erected. Sorry if we promised something else (p. 185 * my translation).
Scaman*268*Binni*VVC*BG
Book reviews / Scand. J. Mgmt. 17 (2001) 397}407
405
If the authors do not intend their book's title to be taken seriously, how can a reader be blamed for not taking the rest of it seriously? To my mind, a book is the enactment of an implicit trust relationship between an author and the readers. The trust is built on the fact that words are used to convey the understanding of the author. The trust is not endangered by the obvious fact that words may be ambiguous and communicated meanings obscure. However, the trust is betrayed when the authors are uninterested in the communicated message. It amounts to arrogance to admit openly to such a betrayal. When they disclaim any intention to stand by the position they have advanced (p. 215), we begin to understand the game: The delayering prophets are false. We can be false too! There is a more interesting message to gain from the argument, provided that the game is being played for real. When the book is translated into English (which I think it will be and deserves to be) then choose a copy-editor who is not `positive to everything we said and everything we wrotea (p. 8 * my translation). Such indulgence in the short run produces pains in the longer run, also for the readers. A more critical copy-editor would reduce the number of cute but completely super#uous parentheses (see almost any page), the intimidating insights into the authors' driving skills, sailing preferences, networks of friends and former students (e.g. p. 120), the most conspicuous cases of tautology (e.g. p. 210), and the worst examples of their free associations (e.g. p. 151). We are told that when the authors give talks to middle managers they receive a standing ovation even before the talk begins. Some take the message seriously and see renewed hope in the re-erection of organizational pyramids. In the process they are willing to grant power and glory to new prophets. But in terms of hopes, my sympathies still lie with the delayering movement. Resource e$ciency, democracy, customer focus and the realisation of human capabilities are in any case vague dreams, the pursuit of which will require lots of organizing. Taken as a corrective to the necessary coordination and control in organizations, delayering seems to me to accord with these dreams. Hierarchies will not disappear, and control and coordination will remain part of all social endeavours. But this does not justify promoting pyramids as the solution. I still tend to believe that `Riv pyramidernaa has more to o!er than `Res pyramidernaa * as a programme and as a book. But while I do not join the middle managers in their standing ovation, and will hold on to the delayering dream a little longer, I willingly grant that the book provides engaging reading. Certainly, engagement is often worth more than agreement. It is also a virtue in its own right to say things that nobody else is saying these days. New ideas need to be explored, even if at a "rst glance they appear to be stupid. They certainly need to be further explored in spite of reviews that do not exactly encourage such persistence. Hopefully, my critical review will not silence deviant voices in a "eld so bored by received wisdom, but will instead engage Ohlsson and Rombach in a new round of exploration of the relayering proposition. Kristian Kreiner Department of Organization and Industrial Sociology Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark PII: S 0 9 5 6 - 5 2 2 1 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 5 - 4