Eight to Late

Project management in the post-

bureaucratic organisation
with 12 comments
Introduction
Over the last two decades or so, it has been recognized that creativity and innovation
tend to thrive in organisations where employees have a say in decisions that affect
their work. This has lead to the notion of a post-bureaucratic organisation – an
organisation in which decisions are made collectively through dialogue and
consensus, and where the hierarchy is flat. Although a number of workgroups within
large organizations function this way (and with some success too), a post-
bureaucratic organisation is generally seen as a utopian and academic ideal; one that
is unlikely to work in the real world. Those who manage organizations, departments
or workgroups are generally uncomfortable with employees working
autonomously, even though this might lead to the generation of novel ideas and
products. This is understandable: it is ultimately the responsibility of managers to
ensure that organisational or departmental goals are achieved. How else to do this
but through the time-tested command and control approach to management?
In response to the question posed above, project management is often touted as a
means to manage creative and innovative efforts in organisations (see some of the
articles in this issue of PM Network, for example). The claim seems a reasonable
one: project management (by definition) provides a means to manage collective,
goal oriented endeavours. Further, many projects – especially those involving new
product or software development – have a creative/innovative component. In
practice, though, project management tends to be a bureaucratic affair; involving
plans that must be followed, schedules that must be adhered to and regular progress
reports that must be made. Even so (or perhaps, because this is so) many
organizations see project management as a means to manage all creative work in a
post-bureaucratic setting. Implicit in this view is the assumption that the
implementation of project management processes will enable managers to control
and direct creative work without any adverse side-effects. An article by Damian
Hodgson entitledProject Work: The Legacy of Bureaucratic Control in the Post-
Bureaucratic Organisation, explores the tensions and contradictions presented by
this notion. Although the article was written a while ago (in 2003), I believe the ideas
explored in it are ever more relevant today, particularly in view of the
increasing projectisation of organisations and the work carried out within them.
Hence my motivation to summarise and review the paper.
Background – setting the stage
To be fair, many organizations recognise that a “light hand on the rudder” is needed
in order to encourage creativity and innovation. In these organisations, project
management is often seen as a means to achieve this. But how well does it work in
practice? Hodgson’s paper aims to provide some insight into this question via a case
study of an organization in which a project-based form of management was
implemented as a means to balance the requirements of creativity and control. In
his words:

In response to the challenges of the post-bureaucratic form, project management has

been put forward by many as a ‘tried-and-tested’ package of techniques able to
cope with discontinuous work, expert labour and continuous and unpredictable
change while delivering the levels of reliability and control of the traditional
 bureaucracy. In this article I explore some of the contradictions and tensions within a
department where such a ‘hybrid’ mode of control is implemented, embodying both
bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic logics. In particular, I focus upon the discursive
tactics employed to sell ‘rebureaucratization’ as ‘debureaucratization’, and the
complex employee responses to this initiative. I argue that the tensions evident here
cast significant doubt on the feasibility of a seamless integration of bureaucracy and
the post-bureaucratic [organization].

The “discursive tactics” that Hodgson mentions to are (seemingly reasonable and
rational) arguments that an organization might use to “sell” the idea that the
methods and approaches of project management are consistent with the ideals of a
post-bureaucratic organization. An example of such an argument goes as follows:
project management is routinely used to manage new product development projects,
so it is eminently suited to managing creative work (Incidentally, this isn’t quite right
– see this paper review for more on why)
Post bureaucracy vs. bureaucracy
Before moving on, it is worth comparing the characteristics of bureaucratic and post-
bureaucratic organizations. Hodgson provides the following comparison, drawn
from Hekscher’s work:
Bureacracy Post-bureaucracy
Consensus through Acquiescence to Consensus through Institutionalized Dialogue
Authority
Influence based on Formal Position Influence through
Persuasion/PersonalQualities
Internal Trust Immaterial High Need for Internal Trust
Emphasis on Rules and Regulations Emphasis on Organizational Mission
Information Monopolised at Top of Strategic Information shared in Organization
Hierarchy
Focus on Rules for Conduct Focus on Principles Guiding Action
Fixed (and Clear) Decision Making Fluid/Flexible Decision Making Processes
Processes
Network of Specialized Communal Spirit/Friendship Groupings
FunctionalRelationships
Hierarchical Appraisal Open and Visible Peer Review Processes
Definite and Impermeable Boundaries Open and Permeable Boundaries
Objective Rules to ensure Equity of Broad Public Standards of Performance
Treatment
Expectation of Constancy Expectation of Change
The aim of the case study is to highlight some of the inconsistencies and
contradictions that result from applying a bureaucratic mechanism (project
management) to manage the work of a group that was very good at doing creative
work, but was used to a more free-wheeling, hands-off management style (i.e. a
group which approximates the idealised post-bureaucratic environment described
above).

Why project management?

Project management has its roots in classical management (ala Taylor and Fayol), so
it is perhaps surprising that it is considered as a means to manage work in a post-
bureaucratic setting. In Hodgson’s words:
I would argue that what distinguishes project management as of particular relevance
to 21stcentury organizations is its rediscovery of a very 19th-century preoccupation
with comprehensive planning, linked to a belief in the necessity of tight managerial
discipline.

Project management tools and techniques support managerial discipline by providing

means to decompose the project into manageable bits – by using a WBS say – and
then assigning these bits to individuals (or small teams). The work assigned can then
be tracked and controlled tightly – which is a good thing. If the matter rested there it
wouldn’t be too bad, but very often management also prescibes how the work should
be done. This level of control results in a loss of autonomy (and motivation) for team
members whose job it is to do the work. The loss of motivation can have negative
effects, especially in projects with a large creative component. To counter this
criticism, in recent years project management has started to focus on the creative
aspects of projects – what’s needed to motivate teams, how to foster creativity (in
new product development work, say) etc. As Hodgson puts it,
The linking of project management and change management has increased project
management’s influence across industries, such that now the largest professional
organization in project management includes special interest groups in areas as
diverse as healthcare, retail, media, marketing, and hospitality. As a consequence
the last decade has been a time of particularly rapid expansion for project
management, as issues of change, knowledge management, and constant innovation
emerged as central themes in popular management discourse.

So, project management offers two (seemingly contradictory) benefits: the ability to
maintain tight control of work and the ability to foster innovation and creativity:

…project management can be seen as an essentially bureaucratic system of control,

based on the principles of visibility, predictability and accountability, and
operationalized through the adherence to formalized procedure and constant written
reporting mechanisms. At the same time, however, project management draws upon
the rhetoric of empowerment, autonomy and self-reliance central… In principle, then,
project management offers a system which attempts to integrate bureaucratic
control and a form of responsible autonomy more in keeping with the
interdisciplinary, knowledge-intensive nature of much project work in teams.
Seen in this light, it is perhaps not so surprising that project management is viewed
as a means to manage creative work.

The case study

With the above background done, I now move on to a discussion of the case study.
In Hodgson’s words, the study:

…focused upon a telephone bank in northern England which I have referred to under
the pseudonymBuzzbank. In the late 1980s, Buzzbank had been set up by a major UK
bank, which I will call TN Banking, and represented one of several success stories in
the retail banking sector over this period. Through reduced overheads and the
extensive use of new technology in the form of sophisticated marketing techniques
and call-centre technology, Buzzbank had expanded rapidly in terms of market share
and turnover, developing into a key component of TN Banking’s global operations. My
interest in particular centred on Buzzbank senior management’s identification of
project management as the prime ‘critical success factor’ for the organization; the
development of project management expertise throughout the organization was seen
as a key priority to maintain performance into the next decade. To an extent, the
project teams researched could scarcely be more ‘cutting edge’, representing highly-
trained ‘knowledge workers’ developing innovative high technology applications and
solutions in a new sector of an enormously profitable industry
Hodgson conducted interviews and observed operations within the IT department of
Buzzbank over a period of two years. During this period, the organization was
implementing a “strategic plan” aimed at formalizing innovation and creative work
using project management processes. The idea, in the words of a couple of senior IT
managers was to “bring a level of discipline” and “bring an idea of professional
structuring” to the work of the highly successful unit. The structuring and discipline
was to be achieved by implementing project management processes.
The main rationale used to sell project management to the Buzzbank IT team is a
familiar one: the need to ensure predictability and repeatability of work done whilst
ensuring that innovation and creativity would not be impeded. Another justification
offered by management was that the size of the organization (which had grown
considerably in the years prior to the implementation of the strategic plan) meant
that the existing “ad-hoc” work culture would no longer be successful. That is, the
size of the organization necessitated a degree of formalization, ergo bureaucratic
procedures had to be put in place. This was rationalised (by senior management) as
a natural and inevitable consequence of growth:

…The organization was therefore portrayed by senior management in IT as

approaching its ‘next stage of evolution’. The immediate benefit of such a metaphor
for those members of senior management charged with rebureaucratizing the
organization is that it carries a very strong sense of inevitability. As such, it casts
opposition to such changes as irrational and futile, standing in the way of natural
‘evolution’.

Further, managers in the organization dubbed any employee resistance as “natural

growing pains” – like those of an adolescent, say. Cast in this light, dissenting
viewpoints were portrayed as natural and unavoidable – and possibly even necessary
– but ultimately without any validity.

Another interesting aspect that Hodgson highlights is the way in which old practices
(the successful but “bad” ones) were subsumed in the new (formal) framework. For
example, in the old world, employees were given the freedom to experiment, and
many considered this as a strength not a weakness. In the new world, however, such
a practice was seen as a threat; it was considered more important to capture how to
do things correctly so that things became repeatable (ala best practice) and
experimentation would not be necessary. As one manager put it:

If we capture how we do things right, at least it makes things repeatable, and we can
record the improvement required when things don’t go right, which doesn’t happen
in a rapidly-expanding, gung-ho environment.

Hodgson notes that the terms rapidly-expanding and gung-ho, which are used in a
negative sense, could just as well be cast in positive terms such as
flexible, proactive etc. The point being that management framed the existing
situation in terms that made the implementation of the new procedures seem like a
logical and reasonable next step. The processes were touted as a means to achieve
change (i.e. be flexible), but in a controlled way. So, management went to great
lengths to avoid use of terms that would be perceived as being negative – for
example, the term “structure” was used instead of “bureaucracy” or “formalization.”
In this way, management attempted to assimilate the existing values of Buzzbank
into the strategic plan.
So, how well did it work? Here’s what Hodgson says about the end result:

The impression given [by senior management] was that of an organizational change
which was inevitable, which gave rise to some understandable but irrational
resistance, and which had now beeneffectively completed, for the good of the
organization as a whole.
On the other hand, the impression Hodgson got from speaking to lower level
employees was very different:

However, in the time spent by myself in the organization, the tone and target of
much of the humour, as well as much stronger reactions, appeared to throw doubt on
the extent to which this discourse had permeated among the general employees,
particularly within the IT department. Humour was commonplace in the everyday
banter both within teams and between teams in the IT division at Buzzbank, and the
increasing levels of bureaucratization was the butt of most of the humour,
particularly at the lower levels of the hierarchy. The main experience of project
management as reported by many Buzzbank employees was one of intensified
bureaucratic surveillance…
A key example is the reaction of employees to managerial jargon that was used in
company circulars and literature intended to promote the strategic plan.

Typically, comments were provoked by the circulation of literature on the strategic

plan, and again, excerpts of the document were read out by members of staff, adding
ironic comments to underline the gap between the document and their experience of
life and work in the department.

Hodgson notes that employees often appeared to comply with the new regulations,
but not in the way intended by management:

At other times, the employees appeared to comply with the formal requirements of
the new system, in terms of filling in the necessary forms, reporting in at given times,
completing the necessary work-logs and so on. Even here, despite the relative
sophistication of senior management’s re-articulation of key discourses, compliance
on the part of Buzzbank employees in many cases bore all the hallmarks of
instrumental behaviour, accompanied by insubordinate statements and humour
ranging from the cynical to the confrontational. At other times, assurances were
given to senior management and immediately contravened, fictionalized accounts of
project activities were submitted late, or else procedures were observed meticulously
to the detriment of deadlines and other constraints. The emergent organizational
order was a precarious negotiation between alienated compliance and an
autonomous disregard for bureaucratic demands…

In short: there was a clear gap between the perceptions of management and
employees as to the success of the newly implemented processes.

It is clear that Buzzbank managers saw project management as a means to control

and direct creative / innovative work in a way that would have no negative effect on
employee morale and motivation. The challenge, of course, lay in achieving
employee buy-in. Management used many creative (!) tactics to “sell” project
management to staff. These included:
 1. References to a “natural process of evolution” and the consequent
“growing pains” that the organization would experience. This made the pain of
the change natural and inevitable, but necessary in the interest of future gain.
2. Manipulation of terminology to make the changes seem more palatable
– e.g. using the word “structure” instead of “formalization” or “bureaucracy”.
3. Co-opting terminology of post-bureaucratic organizations into literature
designed to promote the new structure. For example, claiming that project
management processes would enable the organization to be even more
responsive to change (i.e. flexible), through change management processes.
From employees’ perspective, such techniques were plainly seen for what they were:
methods to “sell the unsellable”. The negative reactions of employees were
manifested through sarcastic humour and (often minor) acts of insubordination. The
case study thus highlights the difficulties in using project management as a means to
control work in a post-bureaucratic work environment.

Wrapping-up: reflections and summary

Hodgson sees the case study as exemplifying the problem of control vs. autonomy in
emerging post-bureaucratic organizations: managers view project management as a
means to address the risks inherent in post-bureaucratic work, whereas employees
view it as a unnecessary and unjustified imposition. Management was looking for the
“best of both worlds”, a hybrid model that incorporated the best elements of a post
bureaucratic model and a traditional command and control approach. The case study
casts doubt on whether such a hybrid is possible solely through the implementation
standard project management techniques and processes. It does so by exposing
some of the tensions and differences in perceptions that can occur when such a
model is implemented.
So where does this leave managers? Is there a way to manage creative work without
destroying employee morale and motivation?

Looking over the complaints of the Buzzbank employees, it is clear that most of the
problems arose from the loss of autonomy that they had enjoyed prior to the
implementation of the new processes. This being the case, any measure to increase
autonomy should improve the situation. A couple of possibilities come to mind – both
of which I have discussed in earlier pieces. These are:

1. Empower employees to make decisions that affect their work. This

means allowing them the freedom to decide the best approach to solving
problems (within limits specified by organisational and resource constraints).
2. In situations where (1) isn’t possible, one could use collaborative
techniques such as dialogue mappingto achieve employee buy-in. Of course,
management has to be prepared to engage in true dialogue, and be willing to
act upon (reasonable) suggestions made by employees.
The key message is simple and obvious: the more of say employees have in making
work-related decisions, the more engaged and motivated they’ll be. This is not just a
warm and fuzzy notion, but one that is backed up by research on motivation (see this
paper review, for example). Yes, this does mean letting go of the “reins of control” to
an extent but it is clear, as highlighted by Hodgson’s work, that holding the reins
tightly might cause more problems that it solves. What’s called for, above all, is a
degree of flexibility: use project management processes by all means, but be open
to employee input as to what’s working well and what’s not.
To sum up: Hodgson’s case study suggests that inflexible project management
based approaches to managing creative work may not work as well as advertised by
purveyors of frameworks and methodologies. As an alternative, it might be worth
taking a step towards the utopian ideal of a post-bureaucratic organisation by using
techniques that encourage employee input in organisational decision making.