Abstract
Management tools are traditionally depicted as rational and are therefore expected to reduce organizational complexity. However, the reflexive efforts deployed in the last 20 years has provided us with reliable insights on the need to go beyond this vision and recognize the extent to which these tools can trigger unforeseen and sometimes unwanted chains of reactions. This chapter is a participation to this reflexive effort, both at the empirical and theoretical levels. After introducing the reader to the existing literature on the topic, two case studies will be discussed. Centered on the deployment of safety performance indicators, these case studies provide additional empirical material confirming the role of complexity creator of management tools. These observations are then analyzed through the lenses of existing management concepts and models demonstrating their potential of reproducibility. In doing so, the mechanisms of complexity creation discussed in this paper are of potential interest for every organization interested in deploying new management tools.
TopIntroduction
Anticipate, decide and control are the three structuring pillars of everyday management activities (Moisdon, 1997). Regardless of the operating field or organization structure, the management tools deployed to support these activities are expected to display two key characteristics. First, they need to vehicle a formal rationality (Weber, 1978), i.e. the results or orientations privileged by the tool are to be interpreted as the reflect of objective and well-structured calculations. Second, they allow managers to circumvent their limited rationality by providing meaningful syntheses that encompass a set of parameters or dimensions which would not have been approachable through cognitive capabilities alone. With respect to these expectations, it seems fair to state that management tools are first and foremost perceived as reducers of organizational complexity.
It is therefore unsurprising that organizations confronted by unprecedented competition, rapidly-shifting environments, and strengthened governance structures rely more and more heavily on such tools in order to adapt to their context and demonstrate accountability to a variety of stakeholders (authorities, partners, shareholders, clients, and even the public at large).
However, such a vision does not sustain a serious reflexive approach on the way in which management tools are used on an everyday basis. Indeed, by shedding light on the appropriation of management tools and the associated strategies deployed by the users thereof, assorted literature on management tools sociology as well as organizational behavior have provided us with the prerequisite hindsight to criticize what now can be assumed as a naive vision of management. Consequently, the analysis of management tools’ life cycle - from conception to effective deployment and potential obsolescence - reveals how they may be at the source of a chain of human and organizational reactions, which may lead to unintended consequences and the emergence of new behaviors. Simply said, we’re speaking here of complexity.
This chapter will first introduce the reader to the literature that provided, through theoretical and empirical approaches, the seeds to grow a new vision of management tools that goes beyond their supposed rationalization impact. With this background in mind, the following section describes two mechanisms through which organizational complexity is directly linked to the introduction of a new management tool. In order to do so, two distinct real case studies focused on performance indicators (PIs) in the field of industrial safety are presented. Largely deployed as a means of organizational control, PIs have spread in organizations thanks to their supposed ability to provide synthesis that directly support action. Focusing on this kind of tools should therefore reveal mechanisms of interest to a large sample of managers and researchers.
Finally, future developments are suggested, especially regarding the ability of exploiting the description of complexity mechanisms in the management tool design phase so to prevent their occurrence.
Comparatively to existing literature, this work goes beyond the observation of empirical facts resulting from the introduction of management tools to describe the underlying mechanisms at play and relating them to existing concepts already made available by management science. In doing so, this work contributes to:
- -
provide additional empirical evidence on the need in management science to pay higher attention to the way our tools are appropriated and modified by organizations and vice versa;
- -
a better formalization of complexity creation mechanisms due to the introduction of management tools;
- -
endow managers with elements of attention to be considered at various stages of management tools life cycle (diagnosis, design and implementation) to confine the potential chain of negative reactions out of which emerges organizational complexity;
- -
Remind that complexity creation is inherent to management tools deployment and remains a valuable source of organizational knowledge.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Organizational Complexity: The result of highly connected, interacting, and coevolving entities within an organization.
Rationalization: The process of matching an individual or collective behavior with a set of predefined, not necessarily shared, set of preferences.
Industrial Safety: The set of methods and models aiming at identifying and managing adversarial consequences of industrial activities on all aspects of environment.
Artefacts: A human artificial construct bearing a significant meaning in an individual or collective process.
Management Tools: Every mean through which a management technique is conveyed in the organization with the mean of rationalizing at least one aspect of its functioning.
Key Performance Indicators: Synthetic measures of performance against key objectives.