What counts? In work, as in other areas of life, it is not
always clear what standards we are being judged by or how our worth
is being determined. This can be disorienting and disconcerting.
Because of this, many organizations devote considerable resources
to limiting and clarifying the logics used for evaluating worth.
But as David Stark argues, firms would often be better off,
especially in managing change, if they allowed multiple logics of
worth and did not necessarily discourage uncertainty. In fact, in
many cases multiple orders of worth are unavoidable, so
organizations and firms should learn to harness the benefits of
such "heterarchy" rather than seeking to purge it. Stark makes this
argument with ethnographic case studies of three companies
attempting to cope with rapid change: a machine-tool company in
late and postcommunist Hungary, a new-media startup in New York
during and after the collapse of the Internet bubble, and a Wall
Street investment bank whose trading room was destroyed on 9/11. In
each case, the friction of competing criteria of worth promoted an
organizational reflexivity that made it easier for the company to
change and deal with market uncertainty. Drawing on John Dewey's
notion that "perplexing situations" provide opportunities for
innovative inquiry, Stark argues that the dissonance of diverse
principles can lead to discovery.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!