Organizing Principles: Ideas and Practices That Travel

The actions of individuals and the structures of social systems are created by structuration (compare Giddens, theory of structuration). Numerous ideas of organization have formed global modern societies and their division of labor. Fordism, taylorism and nowadays toyotism changed our work and our societies. Today, our industries and postindustrial sectors are structured by flexibility, greater rationalization and the implementation of communication and information technology (compare Dicken). The change in our economies is related to a greater differentiation and specialization of society and the imperative of profit rates. Competition on globalizing scale and the technological revolution (IT, biotechnology) transform the environment of capitalistic markets and their profit maximizing actors. Producers adopt to new systemic boarders and characteristics, but they can't deny their historical background (compare: Prague library, Doremus et al. The myth of the global corportion). The discussion on varieties of capitalism (Streeck, Scharpf, Cohen, ...) shows us this "path dependency" for national organization structures of political economies (e.g. Europe - corporatism, corporate governance).

Can we put this organizational change into a greater theoretical framework? I think yes. The change in principles of organizations moves away from strong solid or political structured forms like unions, families, states, associations, clubs to reciprocal, competitive and money driven forms like markets, firms and egoistic individuals. We decrease our solidarity and accept competition and exchange relation (in German: Katalaxie). In terms of system theory we see a decline of diffuse solidarity in favor of concrete solidarity. A good example is the diminishing support of public goods and the sells of public property in favor of private goods and property (compare Rifkin (2000) The Age of Access).
The new ideas, which are discussed in our readings, are auditing, statistical observation, new public management, rationalization of the social space. Is this the hegemony of neo-liberalism? Let me shed some light on epistemological questions. Modern social science (e.g. American political science in contrast to Germany) is strongly influenced by positivism, which denies normative questions and answers. This dominance of rational choice theories has penetrated social sciences. The rational actor (homo oeconomicus) left the domain of economics and business administration and entered the realm of sociology and others. The utility maximizing person resembles more to a "polymorph, perverse infant" (Lauer) than to the communicative, reasonable and autonomous human being. This is in the same line as the less complexity and less reflected "programme" of auditing than evaluation (compare Power).

When we see the broader topic of the epistemological change in organization structures, we ending at very old idea. The critique of Platon on quantitative methodic is enlarged by Leo Strauss. He compares statistics and quantitative methods (like auditing and new public management) as the "second Platonic cave," which leads us more far away from the light of truth than seating in the dark cave of the polis with shadows on the wall and doing social interactions (compare Platon, politeia).

The ideological hegemony of positivism is only one part of the story for me. The materialistic facts have also changed. Things transforms organization practices in a similar way. Let us take the McDonalds example. White-collar workers go to McDonalds, because he is very close to their working place. The transformation of organization is also triggered by competition, missing rules, modern technologies (e.g. computers), imperatives of efficiency, the moral desert of postmodernity or the national "Sachzwang" (pressure of facts) of market competition. One example of material changes is the management of higher education in Great Britain. The budgets of universities decrease and the government forces their education facilities to us narrow financial resources under business methods. The neo-liberal idea of competition is the final result of the need of quality management like auditing and ranking. My work in the student union at the university of Regensburg shows me the same transformation of organization structuration. Neo-liberal market hegemony introduces positivistic marketing methods.  The discussion of Strathem or Power about higher education shows the increasing importance of marketing factors. Perhaps the term "commodification" show us also the way of this transformation. Public goods like education or politics are put under market conditions as private goods.

The transformation to auditing or rational and flexible organization gives us numerous positives outcomes. The progressive developments are the accountability of policy (compare the process of sustainable development and the agenda 21) or the increasing rationality and complexity in society and firms. The accountability binds politicians to policy aims in the same way as constitutional rights. The greater rationality and complexity enable corporations to maintain a global division of labor or the economies of speed with greater entitlement (in the meaning of Sen; neoclassical: welfare or utility). The new principles of organization increase productivity and materialistic wealth.

The new ways of production lead also to the "humanization of work." The readings for this week speak not very much about it. In my point of view, this can be justified by the overwhelming negative effects of toyotism, new public management or auditing, although business administration sees these changes in a different and positive light. They speak about job enrichment, job enlargement and empowerment for the working class and efficiency gains. This effects are also combined with new forms of organization. New ways of organization increase the quality and the differentiation of products.

We should talk about advantages, but from my point of view, the disadvantages overwhelm the gains. Positivism, flexibility and rationality bring new system crises. The complexity of positivistic "social physics" (compare Saint-Simonism, Decartes) is too low for the interpretation and the communication of global modernity (compare Strathern critique; in general Leo Strauss and second platonic cave; also Luhmann: Ecological comunication).

The creation of accountability interfere with trust in our societies. When we control more things and action, we symbolize mistrust. Is a increasing mistrust in complex societies a sign for anomaly and dysfunctionality? "Colonialization" and "decoupling," the negative terms of Power's analyses in the auditing society, proof numerous dysfunctional consequences of auditing, but the total negative effect isn't clear.

When we detect negative developments of social functionality, we should also talk about counteracting moments. The discussion of culture mentions for me the effects of unidimensionality (compare Marcuse) and the changes from sensibleness to rationality (Kauffmann) by global modernity. Perhaps the society adapts to this negative changes and values this disadvantages as positive.
When I see the new forms of organization, they always resemble the system crises of the theory of Habermas. For me, auditing and rationality are comparable with the "colonialization of the lifeworld" (Habermas). The retreat into the private life (Habermas) is similar to the decrease of trust. Is this a too simple argument?

The readings for this week refer to Niklas Luhmann and his system theory. The ideas of autopoesis and reduction of complexity are useful in this context, but the system theory carries a lot of problems (e.g. no micro-macro link). I would prefer the use of theory of communication or the theory of structuration.
Let me go back to auditing. Auditing or quantitative methods are a symbol for the 'truth of numbers' and exact science. Like the useless critique on Gore's "fuzzy numbers" from Bush (first presidential debate 2000), qualitative research is always connected to subjective and 'bad' science. Numbers, statistics and graphs are more convincing than reasonable arguments. This is my impression from numerous lectures at university and political discussions. Numbers have the ability to compress and reduce complexity without losing complexity, but some questions should be answered by positivistic scientists. Can you give numbers and equations for good, beauty or justice? (compare Sen: "Reexamine inequality" for justice and mathematics). Are ordinal scales personal decisions?

The power of rational arguments, statistics or econometric is compatible with the critique of Nietzche. Rationality is for me the modern form of nihilism. We destroy our God/s or our values and we are lost in a constructed world without orientation. Are we losing our consciousness with these modern principles of organization? Richard Sennett speaks about this phenomena in his book (Sennett 2000), which discusses flexibility in working organizations. Rifkin show this dissatisfaction of global modernity too, when he asks 150 top managers and nobody like to live in this world (Die Zeit, No. 40, 9/28/2000, p. 52). New forms of capitalistic organization bring new disadvantages. Perhaps Altvater/Mahnkopf are right, when they speak about a "money fetish," aren't they?

When we are going to discuss the new forms of organization, we shouldn't forget the question of power. Who is the origin of this change? Technology or capitalism? For me, the power is allocated in a structure of money and capitalistic profit seeking. We could see a similar structuration without new information and communication technology. The epoch of industrialization shows us the same negative consequences of a libertarian hegemony.

The new principles of organization are connected to new technologies, but their use and consequences are formed by ideologies like positivism. The historical path dependency of social development (theory of structuration; compare example: Prague library) forms some barriers against fast changes. When the new principles are installed, we will gain something, but the too narrow rationality of modern principles of organization will create greater system crisis (e.g. distrust, colonization, too less complexity, communication problems, nihilism).