How Bureaucracy Promotes Inclusive Organizing

Publikation: Bidrag til konferencePaperForskningpeer review

Resumé

Diversity literature in general and Feminist in particular have long promoted alternatives to bureaucracy on the premise that this form of governance is far from gender- and race-neutral, and that inclusive organizing necessitate a flatter, decentralized and more ‘organic’ set-up (Ferguson 1984, Martin P.Y 1987, Ashcraft 2001, 2006, 2013, Acker 1990, Ghorashi & Sabelis 2012, Dai 2014). My ethnographic research in two case organizations both championed for their diversity work in a Danish context, shows a different pattern: While the organization characterized by structural flexibility and informality struggle with membership perceptions of partiality and unfairness on the basis of ethnicity and professional background, then the bureaucratic structured organization characterized by structural stability and formality is more successful in generating the necessary membership perception fairness and opportunities conducive to their inclusion. Guided by Ashcraft (2001) concept of organized dissonance, this paper explores how the combination of apparent incongruent elements of stability/flexibility and formality/informality might offer a passage for inclusive organizing.
Diversity literature in general and Feminist in particular have long promoted alternatives to bureaucracy on the premise that this form of governance is far from gender- and race-neutral, and that inclusive organizing necessitate a flatter, decentralized and more ‘organic’ set-up (Ferguson 1984, Martin P.Y 1987, Ashcraft 2001, 2006, 2013, Acker 1990, Ghorashi & Sabelis 2012, Dai 2014). My ethnographic research in two case organizations both championed for their diversity work in a Danish context, shows a different pattern: While the organization characterized by structural flexibility and informality struggle with membership perceptions of partiality and unfairness on the basis of ethnicity and professional background, then the bureaucratic structured organization characterized by structural stability and formality is more successful in generating the necessary membership perception fairness and opportunities conducive to their inclusion. Guided by Ashcraft (2001) concept of organized dissonance, this paper explores how the combination of apparent incongruent elements of stability/flexibility and formality/informality might offer a passage for inclusive organizing.

Konference

KonferenceThe 30th EGOS Colloquium 2014
Nummer30
LokationRotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University
LandHolland
ByRotterdam
Periode03/07/201405/07/2014
Internetadresse

Bibliografisk note

CBS Bibliotek har ikke adgang til materialet

Citer dette

Holck, L. (2014). How Bureaucracy Promotes Inclusive Organizing. Afhandling præsenteret på The 30th EGOS Colloquium 2014, Rotterdam, Holland.
Holck, Lotte. / How Bureaucracy Promotes Inclusive Organizing. Afhandling præsenteret på The 30th EGOS Colloquium 2014, Rotterdam, Holland.28 s.
@conference{aa1d6068f8834d2289f3e9fc95784e62,
title = "How Bureaucracy Promotes Inclusive Organizing",
abstract = "Diversity literature in general and Feminist in particular have long promoted alternatives to bureaucracy on the premise that this form of governance is far from gender- and race-neutral, and that inclusive organizing necessitate a flatter, decentralized and more ‘organic’ set-up (Ferguson 1984, Martin P.Y 1987, Ashcraft 2001, 2006, 2013, Acker 1990, Ghorashi & Sabelis 2012, Dai 2014). My ethnographic research in two case organizations both championed for their diversity work in a Danish context, shows a different pattern: While the organization characterized by structural flexibility and informality struggle with membership perceptions of partiality and unfairness on the basis of ethnicity and professional background, then the bureaucratic structured organization characterized by structural stability and formality is more successful in generating the necessary membership perception fairness and opportunities conducive to their inclusion. Guided by Ashcraft (2001) concept of organized dissonance, this paper explores how the combination of apparent incongruent elements of stability/flexibility and formality/informality might offer a passage for inclusive organizing.",
author = "Lotte Holck",
note = "CBS Library does not have access to the material; null ; Conference date: 03-07-2014 Through 05-07-2014",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
url = "http://www.egosnet.org/home",

}

Holck, L 2014, 'How Bureaucracy Promotes Inclusive Organizing' Paper fremlagt ved The 30th EGOS Colloquium 2014, Rotterdam, Holland, 03/07/2014 - 05/07/2014, .

How Bureaucracy Promotes Inclusive Organizing. / Holck, Lotte.

2014. Afhandling præsenteret på The 30th EGOS Colloquium 2014, Rotterdam, Holland.

Publikation: Bidrag til konferencePaperForskningpeer review

TY - CONF

T1 - How Bureaucracy Promotes Inclusive Organizing

AU - Holck,Lotte

N1 - CBS Library does not have access to the material

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Diversity literature in general and Feminist in particular have long promoted alternatives to bureaucracy on the premise that this form of governance is far from gender- and race-neutral, and that inclusive organizing necessitate a flatter, decentralized and more ‘organic’ set-up (Ferguson 1984, Martin P.Y 1987, Ashcraft 2001, 2006, 2013, Acker 1990, Ghorashi & Sabelis 2012, Dai 2014). My ethnographic research in two case organizations both championed for their diversity work in a Danish context, shows a different pattern: While the organization characterized by structural flexibility and informality struggle with membership perceptions of partiality and unfairness on the basis of ethnicity and professional background, then the bureaucratic structured organization characterized by structural stability and formality is more successful in generating the necessary membership perception fairness and opportunities conducive to their inclusion. Guided by Ashcraft (2001) concept of organized dissonance, this paper explores how the combination of apparent incongruent elements of stability/flexibility and formality/informality might offer a passage for inclusive organizing.

AB - Diversity literature in general and Feminist in particular have long promoted alternatives to bureaucracy on the premise that this form of governance is far from gender- and race-neutral, and that inclusive organizing necessitate a flatter, decentralized and more ‘organic’ set-up (Ferguson 1984, Martin P.Y 1987, Ashcraft 2001, 2006, 2013, Acker 1990, Ghorashi & Sabelis 2012, Dai 2014). My ethnographic research in two case organizations both championed for their diversity work in a Danish context, shows a different pattern: While the organization characterized by structural flexibility and informality struggle with membership perceptions of partiality and unfairness on the basis of ethnicity and professional background, then the bureaucratic structured organization characterized by structural stability and formality is more successful in generating the necessary membership perception fairness and opportunities conducive to their inclusion. Guided by Ashcraft (2001) concept of organized dissonance, this paper explores how the combination of apparent incongruent elements of stability/flexibility and formality/informality might offer a passage for inclusive organizing.

M3 - Paper

ER -

Holck L. How Bureaucracy Promotes Inclusive Organizing. 2014. Afhandling præsenteret på The 30th EGOS Colloquium 2014, Rotterdam, Holland.