Organization

"" Theory and the

)

Public Sector
Instrument, culture and myth

Tom Christensen,
Per Lregreid, Paul ·G. Roness
and Kjell Arne R.svik

I
~
I~ ~~o~I~n~~~;up
LONDON AND' NEW YORK

· -· ·· · · · ·· ·· · · · ~ · ........................,_,_..... _.____ ___

______________ -------··....-··--·-·--·-·-····---·-------------------- -- ·----... -------..·-------------
~
.
~

I
~

~
l Chapter4 VJ-~ t~c:e.v ~\-
I~
si.
A myth perspective

l;·
.
.
.
.

'
t
~
~

i
w
~

~
f ,J. ·---· ·--··- -----·-- -··-··-----·-···- ··-··-·-·----.
~
)~
~-
~
/6"
I
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
' By the end of this chapter you should:

t;.
tt
• have a clear understanding of the main elements of a myth perspective;
~
~
• be able to identify the main ~haracteristics of popular organizatio~~I recipes
•G
.
ii •
( myths), their content, how they are created and ' packaged', and how they
spread;
håve some basic ideas about how popular organizational recipes may affect
V
~-;-
the way public organizations operate. ,,

I
l
~
~.

,·

l
~
~!
MEANING OF MYTHS

We have chosen to call the book's third m~;i approach a myth perspectfre. In
!
~
~
organization theory it is often referred to as ·the New lnstitutional School, and is

~f.
founded on classic works by American researchers such as John W. Meyer, Brian
Rowan, Paul J. DiMaggio, WalterW. Powell andW. Richard Scott. A key conception

l
~
~·
is that organizations oper ate within institutional environments wher e they are
con&onted with socially created norms for how they should be designed and how they

I
should function. Organizations must try to incorporate and reflect these norms
~
' ~ outwardly, even if they do not necessarily make the organization's activities more
~ effective. Through this process organizations become more similar to one another,

I~
~ at least on the surface, in stark contrast to the multiplicity described by a cultural
perspective. Socially created norms in institutional environments are called mydis.
~;

~+
They can be broad and are often referred toas superStandards, or standards "With a more

iE
A MYTH PERSPECTIVE ' A MYTH PERSP ECTIVE

. .
limited scope. Myths can spread quickly, through imitatfon, and they can be adopted are still institutionalized in the sense that fora period of time it is taken for granted
by public organi7.ations without producing instrumental effects, that is, they may that they are timely, efficient, modern and thus 'n<!ltural' ways of steering and
sometimes function as 'window dressing'. Leaders of public organizations can, for organizing. In this chapter we address .6.ve questions about rationalized myths, as they
instance, talk about reforms in a way that makes people believe they are putting are expressed in institutionalized organizational recipes:
r eforms into practice while in reality the leaders do little to make this happen.The
Swedish organization theorist Nils Brunsson has labelled the discrepancy between' talk • The contents ojinsticutionalized rep.pes: What are they about, and what kind of
organization do they prescribe? .
and action hypocrisy; however, in some cases popular organizational recipes,might
be implemented and translated into practice. •• The relationship between recipes: How do different'. institutionalized recipes compare
The American sociologist Talcott Pårsons was one of the first to formulate the with one.another, to what degree do they compete and to what degree do they
insight that organizations cannot survive 'merely' by striving to be efficient. They harmonize?
also need legitimacy from the environment. Organizations seelång legitimacy from
institutional environments must demonstrate that they live up to the fundamental
• Theform efrecipes:What is it about institutionalized r ecipes that makes them so
'elastic' ?
.
~

Western norms ofmodernity, such as continuous growth, innovation and rationality. • Thefarmulation and diffusion ojrecipes:Where·and how do institutionalized recipes
come into being and how are they spread?
These norms are r eflected in a wide repertoire of general ideas and more precise
recipes for how modern, and thus iegitimate, organizations should look, which • The adoption and implememation efrecipes: What happens when an organization
attempts to adopt and impleinent rationalized recipes and apply them to local .
structural components they should have and which procedures and rou~es they
should prioritize. These general and popular ideas and trends often become conditions?
·~·
fashionable, that is, they 11cquire the status of som ething 'all' public organizations
A myth perspective is often seen either as stemming from natura! and cultural
should adopt at a certain point in time, until they go out of style and new fashions
perspectives or as a category of the institutional perspective. In our conclusion,
arrive. Mjtbs asfashicns also illustrates a central point m~~e by March·and Olsen in
however, we will also attempt to interpret rationalized myths in the light of an
their 'garbage-can' model, whereby solutions seek problems rather than the opposite,
instrumental perspective, for tliis elucidateS the eXtent to which myths should be
as is the case for instrumental perspectives.
understood as symbols for enhancitlg organizational efficacy.
The institutional environments public organiza,tionshave to cope with are complex.
Since the end of the 1980s a myth perspective has inaeasingly'been deployed as a
Dilferent parts ofan organization strive to obtain legitimacy..from a range of externa!
theoretical frame ofreference for studies ofreform processes in the public sector.This
actors, such as the mass media, intellectuals, profesSions, banks and institutions of
has partly to do with political science generally having become more attentive to the
accreditation, and become dependent on this.An organization is therefore confronted
symbolic aspects of public polit;ics.1bis, in tu.rn, reflects the fact that public organ-
with many different, often inconsistent and changing ideas and recipes for legitimate
izations are increasingly becoming expres~ve o.r9anizations, in the sense of being
structures and procedures. Popular recipes from institutional environments may also
concerned about their image and r eputation in the environment, for example with
be called 'institutionalized standards' or'rationalized myths', that is, institutionalized
regard to the massmedia, the public and top political executiv~. NotwithStanding,
and widely spread ideas for whåt kinds offörmal structures, technologies, processes,
the most important reason for increased deployment of the myth perspective is
procedures and ideologies an orgånization should adopt. A myth is thus a socially
probably that, Si?Ce the ear}y 1980s, the public secfor ~ become more exposed to
legitimated recipe for how to design part of an organization, It is an idea which excites,
·externa! ideas and recipes circulating in institutional environments.T.his is particularly
grabs attention and has achieved exemplary status in several organizations.
the case for the massive attempts to transfer ideas from the private to the public sector.
Rationalized myths have two important hallmarks. First, they are presented as
Myth perspectives have shown themselves to be particularly useful in accounting for
effective tools organizations can use to achieve goals.When a myth is rationalized this
these types of private-sector-inspired reform processes in the public sector.
im plies that the members of an organization have become convinced - by apparently
scientific arguments - that it is ~ effective tool for ach:ieving specific organizational
goals. Despite this, organizations often experience situations where the instrumental CONTENT.OF MYTHS
effects of adopting a popular recipe do not match expectations and are therefore
disappointing. A rationalized myth may be defined as a non-scientifically justified Myths are more or less clear recipes for how to design an organization. But what kind
conviction that an organizational recipe is grounded in scientific research and
rationality. Second, independently of whether myths resul t in expected effects, they
of organization do they provide recipes for, and what does the organization the recipes ·
preseribe look like? The deföution above emphåsized that each recipe merely sg
A MYTH PERSPECTIVE A MYTH PERSPECTIV E
------- · ·------- -·- ·-

prescribes how apart ofan organization should be designed. A single institutionalized highly diverse organizations, including public organizations, and 'have their day' for
recipe is notat alla complete solution for how an entire, complex organization should a while. Several of the recipes listed above clearly have already had their day. Others
be designed. It would be more appropriate to describe them as institutionalized are still popular and current reform recipes. This is the case, for example, for MBOR,
form-elements or components. A:r:i assortment of recipes exists for how to shape all which many public organizations have tried to implement since the turn of the
aspects of modern organizations, for example leadership, förmal organizational millennium. MBOR may be defined as a system in which specific performance
structure (formal coordination and specialization), the execution of various activities objectives are determined, progress towards objectives is periodically reviewed, end
(recipes for processes, procedures and routines), organizational culture, auditing results are evaluated and rewards are allocated on the basis ofthe results. Also current
systems, etc. Altogether, the supply of ideas and recipes has increased considerably are ideas concerning the so-called flat structure and independent units, entailing,
in the past twenty-five years.1bis means, among other things, that actors attempting among other things, that public services led and politically controlled by senior
to establish new public organizations or to reform existing ones have access to an leadership are turned into units with greater responsibility for their own expenses
exceedingly wide assortment oflegitimated and popular organizational recipes. and income and for quality of service and prices. These are some of the ideas and
Each institutionalized recipe usually has its own distinct literature, that is, recipes currently informing the many comprehensive reform initiatives in public
publications thåt present it and promote it. The individual recipes are usually administration units across the world.
identifiable through abstract concepts known as lin9uiscic labels. What follows is a
limited selection ofthese, classified according to which aspects ofan organization the
recipes are for. A distinct literature exists for each of these and, although mest are RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIFFERENT RECIPES
derived from the private sector, we have now entered into a period where these
recipes are actively sought out and implemented in the public sector: Our own times are marked by a tremendous supply of popular organizational ideas
and recip~s. But what is the relationship between these recipes? What are their
• Recipesfor mana9emcnt and leadership:Team-based management, change manage- similarities and differences?
ment, transformative leadership, service management,Total Quality Leaderslllp Taking the similarities first we can say that they may be grouped into families,
(TQL), knowledge management and value-based management; depending on which part of the organization they are directed towards. Particularly
• Recipesfor desi9nin9 theforma] or9anizational suucturc: Divisionalized structure, closely related are recipes that arise from a commonly held ideology or philosophy.
flexible structure (including matrix structure and project organization), For example, one set of recipes is claimed to have risen .&om administrative philo-
flat/ collegial structure and single-purpose organizations; sophies such as managerialism. The most well-known organizational recipes in the
• Recipesfor human resource mana9ement: Motivational initiatives, colleague-training public sector today are those that fall under the heading ofNPM. NPM isa family of
programmes, career planning, competence mapping, HRM Scorecard, per- business-inspired recipes for the public sector derived from the private sector. At its
formance appraisals, developmental dialogues, headhunting, downsi7ing and core are ideas about professional management (i.e. leaders with knowledge about
empowerment; how to manage and much autonomy to make decisions), increased competition and
• Recipes for or9anizatianal culwre and work environments: Customer and service the use of contracts as tools for political management.
culture, citizens' charter, tribal culture and learning culture; One can also focus on what differentiates recipes. Often leaders and others adopt
• Recipesfor organizing work processcs: Value Process Management (VPM), Business competitive rccipes, for example divergent ideas for how to designa forma! organ-
Process Re-engineering (BPR), Total Quality Management (TQM), time plan- izational structure, a process or a procedure. This can be illustrated by two popular
ning, quality assurance systems, Six Sigma, lean production/ lean management, and widely spread ideas: MBO and TQM.While MBO may be said to focus attention
benchmarking and assorted internal control systems; on effectiveness and efficiency, TQM is a strategy aimed at embedding awareness of
• Rccipesforfinancial control: Management by Objectives (MBO), Management by quality in all organizational processes. lt provides an umbrella under which everyone
Objectives and Results (MBOR), balanced scorecard, Activity-based Costing in the organization should strive to achieve quality and customer satisfaction.
(ABC),Activity-based Management (ABM), EconomicValueAdded (EVA) and Rendered in their pure form in the history of organizational ideas, these two recipes
contract management. appear almostcontradictory.To take one example, Jet us imagine that a public service
agency is instructed to implement MBO. The agency will most likely be asked to
Nowadays a wide array ofrationalized recipes for management, leadership and outline aset of disambiguated and operationalized goals to be achieved within a fixed
organizational design are in circulation.These spring up and spread quickly to many time period. The leadership will supply resources (personnel, money, etc.) to be ~!

-~-------
A MYTH PERSPECTIVE A MYTH PERSPECTIVE

used .to achieve the goals·. Local managers will be.given greater autonomy to decide considerable possibilities for local interpretation and adaptation. One example ofthis
for themselves how resources are to be combined :µid used in order to achieve the is the attempt to implementa so-called 'flat' organizational structure in Scandinavian
goals. Now Jet us imagine that the same agency is also .i nstructed to implement a municipalities over the last two decades.This reclpe has shown itselfto be very elastic,
quality-control system such as TQM for the services it provideS. This wiU usually · and a great many local versions now exist.
entail the agency planning a quality-assurance work process, for instance by dedding
who should do what and in which order and how to discover, report and avoid
deviations, etc.This quality-control work process will then be outlined and inscribed DEVELOPMENT AND DIFFUSION OF MYTHS
in rules (a quality system) to be followed. While the former recipe provides a !arge
degree of freedom for local leaders to decide how to use resources and organize Where do .rationalized ideas about, say, leadership and organizational design come
work processes in order to achieve go.als effidently, the latter recipe theoretically from? How are they developed and how do they spread? Such ideas usually have a
limits that freedom, because it prescribes the trajectory of work processes in great clouded history. Often it is difficult to date them or to find out where and when they
detail. Thus, there are contradictions between the recipe for management by first emerged, even if popular management literature often presents them in
objectives and the recipe for quality assurance. narratives about their origin and history. What is fascinating is that alternative stories
are often told abouthow and when one and the same concept originated.This is the
case for MBO andTQM, two of the most widely spread contemporary concepts. One
ELASTIC RECIPES possible explanation might be that the various provenances actually refer to slightly
different variations of the same idea 'whose time has come', and which therefore
Some popular organizational ideas, for example MBO andTQM, can be interpreted arise in different context.s and at different places simultaneously, just as when
as conflictiJ;ig, indeed, even inconsistent. We know that many organizations, not least mushrooms appear indifferent places in the woods in the autumn. One specific cause
those in the public sector, have tried to implement both these recipes, often for the provenance problem is that popular recipes are often timely systematizations
simultaneously. How can organizations introduce - and live with - concepts and and conceptualizations built on more general, cimeless ideas. For example, as regards
models which appear inconsistent when juxtaposed? In !arge organizations with the design of rational organizations, the idea that organizations should have clear
numerous units, connections may not be drawn or comparisons made between goals is relatively uruversal and timeless, as is the idea that activities and resources
different ideas. Inconsistencies may ~erefore go undiscovered or be concealed. on should be directed towards goal achievement. At various times and places these
purpose. general ideas have provided the basis for a great many attempts to hammer out
A second ·reason is that rationalized myths in the form of institutionalized slightly different local versions. In principle, each of these attempts can be dated and
organizational recipes are not physical objects .but immaterial ideas. In contrast to their source located, and they may have their own local history. Some attempt.s are
physical objects such as cars, airplanes and televisions, ideas do not have a final form patently better known than others and provide the basis for histories of idea that
when they arrive from the 'producers'. Hence, organizational recipes can be has been disseminated almost globally. A case in point is the story about Peter
compared with semi-fa,bricated objects that need to be fmished locally in the Drucker and the origin of MBO. The story goes that Drucker, while working for
individual public organization. Rather than building elements with .6xed forms; which General Electric, was inspired by routines.. used there and hence developed the
may or may not interlock with other elements, modern organizational recipes may popular concept in the early l 950s. But there are also local versions of the origins
be said to consist.ofrather 'elastic materials' that give individual. organizations much of the idea, for instance about actors who coined and spread local versions of MBO
autonomy to eventually develop their own version and to lind new ways of adapting and TQM in the United Kingdom, Sweden and the Netherlands, etc. Thus, several
the recipes to one an~ther. This is just one explanation for why apparently inconsistent alternative stories may circulate about the origin of popular recipes without any of
ideas can co-exist in organizations. The coricepts are interpreted locally and ways them necessarily being vvrong.
found to adapt them, along with local solutions for how the r ecipes can be spliced Although the ideas that popular organizational recipes are based on are often
together. rather general and timeless, it is nevertheless possible to identify groups of actors who
: .'

Even so, the elasticity of organizational recipes varies. Some· clearly spell out and JJ: are intensely involved in the development and diffusion of specific recipes.There are
prescribe in great detail how certain structures, procedures and routines in roles for producers as well as for mediators, and also for authorizers, that is, those
organizations should be fonned. In such instances little freedom is given for local who, by virtue of their position and status, have the ability to endorse specific
recipes and enhance their popularity and capacity for diffusion. Newer research
G~
interpretation. Usually, however, organizational recipes are capacious enough to offer
 · t~t.

JI\
A MYTH PERSPECTIVE A MYTH PERSPECTIVE
___ _. . .. ..-..........-- ---· ------··---- ···--·-··-·-········--·-···--- ---··--·-------·······-
,.,. ~·-·-

mv
ik·
has identified five groups of actors who play particularly important roles as producers I~ Between these last two groups ofactors - consultancy firms and business schools
and mediators. · - there are often close connections that-speed up the developmeot and diffusion of
The first group is a set of actors - or agents - who specifically contribute to organizational ideas. The spread from business schools to consultancy firms happens
developing and spreading recipes to the public sector. Some of the most important when graduatei åre employed by consultancy finns·. Another lci.nd of transfer occurs
ar:e internaticnal or9anizations, among others the Organisatiqn for Economic when theorists from business schools collaborate with consultants and publish articles
Cooperation and Development (OECD) , the European Union, the United Nations or books that launch organizatiooal recipes. ·This is qwte common and it· often
(UN), the lnternational Monetary Fund (IMF) , the World Bank and more recently increases the.recipe's legitimacy and capacity for diffusion.
the World Trade Organisation (WTO). As ~uthors of organizational recipes, these Mass media of various types are the fourth important group of mediators for
actors can almost symbiotically collaborate with important member countries whose organizational recipes. Noteworthy are the many publishers and newspapers
claims to have been succ.essful help p~omote ideas and initiatives for reform. These specializing in to:pics such as economics," organizatioo and leadership. Among the.
actors make their assistance to individual countries contingent on certain conditions, most well known are the Wall Streetjournal and the Financi.a1Times.An9ther influeotial
including the proviso that the country in question accepts and adepts certain recipes · mass media group consists of highly respected international business periodicals,
or 'concepts. Such international actors are also increasingly collaborating with such as the Harvard Business Review, BusinessWeekl_y and The Eccnomist. These regularly
international private actors, and national agents are also engaged in developing and publish popularized portrayals of various organizational recipes and, by virtue of
spreading recipes for national public organizations. Now and then these agents their prestige and distribution, are important media for the spread of ideas. Also
formulate recipes, but their main concern is to redesign existing concepts to .fit better worthy of mentioo are the numerous books on management ·and leadership. This
with speci.fic parts of th.eir nation's public sector. The concepts are often inspired by type of publication was establislied as a distinct genre in the late 1970s. Between
the international organizations and by those who certify them, which makes it more 2,000 ancj 3,000 books are published yearly in Western countries, in one or several
appropriate for individual public organizat:ions to follow them up. categories ofmanagement, business and organization. ·consultants author a signilicant
The second group of producer.s and mediators is consultancyfirms. Over the last number of these, either alone or together with academics from business schools and
tweoty years this group of actors has played an ever-increasing role on the supply side universities. There are many instances of new ideas and recipes being developed,
of popular orgånizational ideas. There are two main reasons for this. Fh-st, there has presented and spread through such books. MBO, for example, was initially spread
been a vigorous growth in the number oflarge resourceful consulting firms. In the through Peter Drucker's book The Pracr.ice oj Mana9ement, first published in 1954.
course of the 1990s, the largest companies have grown far stronger in economic Other cult·books by management gurus are Peters and Waterman's In Seqrch oj
resources, have increased the services they offer and have opened offices worldwide. Excellence from 1982, ånd Osborne and Gaebler's Reinventin9 Government from 1992.
They have therefore become exceedingly influential and one of the dominant actors Lar9e mulcinacional companies are the fifth group of actors. Since the end of the
on the supply side. Second, while the traditiooal role of consultants was to media~e · nineteenth century, when the first of such organizations emerged, they have. grown
knowledge to clients that the consultants had not ~ecessarily developed themselves, in number and are now important symbols' for and the prime motor behind economic
in the course of the last twenty years the largest .firms have invested great resources globalization. Although these organizations are usually perceived as befug clients
in their own research and collaborated with research institutions for the strategic anq users, they also frequently function as developers and mediators of or~tional
purpose of not only being 'transporters' but also producers of organizational recipes, for they often develop their own recipes and devices based on their experi-
knowledge. This has made them even more important actors on th~ supply side. ence and r esearch efforts. In practice they are important mediators because they are
. Th~ third group is roade up of organizations in hi9ha education, especially business r epresented throughout the world and thus distribute ideas worldwide via interna!
schools, but also universities. Through their research and educ;ation of candidåtes channels. Moreover, because of their size, visibility and prestige, large multinational
these schools, particularly those in the West, have moved into central positions in the companies often become strong models for other organizations.
developmeot and diffusion of organizational ideas and recipes. Several of the most · There isa widespread perception that a division oflabour exists among these last
popular recipes today are claimed to have sprung from research at well-respected four groups of actors concerning their roles in the developmeot, mediation and use
business schools in the United States (e.g. Business Process Re.-engmeering and Value- of organizational recipes. Business schools and other research institutions are typically
chain.Management). Just as important is the spread of organizational ideas and recipes perccived as developers and producei:s ofknowledge; consultancy firms and the mass
through graduates, notably those with international, standardized Master ofBusiness media then package and popularize that 19:iowledge-in the form of recipes, which
Administration degrees. Since the late l 970s, this has been one of the world's most are the11 offered to large multinational companies and other organizations. These
popular academic degrees. companies and organizations adopt and irnplement the recipes. In practice, however, b;-
 ! ..
A MYTH PERSPECTIVE n
:ll·"
-~ ~- A MYTH PERSPECTIVE

the boundaries between these groups are becoming blurred. There are many in the last twenty years. This suggests tbat a worldwide common system-identity for
examples ofthis: l.arge consultancy firms try to emulate academic organizations when different units-that ofbeing an organization-is about to emerge.This is expressed
they spend !arge resources to build up their own research units; universities and by entities increasingly understanding themselves and presenting themselves
business schools encroach on the territory of consultancy firms when they are hired outwardly as 'organizations'.
to create specially tailored education and training programmes for specific The spread of a worldw:ide organizational identity-also increasingly adopted by
organizations and when theirresearch staff act as paid consultants for businesses and public orgamzations -has created the basis for the conception ofa world ofrelatively
public organizations. What is more, the mass me~ia do not merely play th.e role of similar systems consisting of mostly the same com ponents, such as goals, leadership,
passive mediators of popular organizational ideas - powerful publishers often take formal structure, organizational culture, procedures for dealing with personnel,
the initiative in conducting research. They organize bo.o k projeets on recipes in the quality systems, auditing systems, etc. This has helped generate a huge and rapid.ly
making and hire various academics and consultants to author them. Finally, many expanding market for the creation and diffusion of organizational recipes.
large multinational companies exceed the bounds of their role as 'passive' custom ers
and users when they invest in research and development. As a consequence of these i
overlapping activities, it becomes difficult to assign the roles of producer, mediator
or user of organizational knowledge and recipes to speci.fic actors. \,

The groups mentioned can be said to create and mediate technical solutions to
problems of efficiency in the public organizations of cl.ifferent countries. If these
technical solutions seem similar, it may be because the problems in cl.ifferent countries
are similar too. From a myth perspective, however, the disseminated solutions are
for the mest part recipes with signi.ficant symbolic power. One way of describing the
ongoing dissemination is to comp'are it with the spread of clothing fashions: just as
the fashion world makes certain clothing popular for certain seasons so, also, in the
world of public organizations, certain recipes are popul.ar for certain periods. Ifwe
employ this metaphor for the groups described above we can say that the authors and
mediators of organization recipes are 'fashion merchants' , while the countries and
public organizations that adopt them are 'followers of fashion' , who are pressured J
inte conformity by peers, although individual organizatioos may have more inde-
pendent attitudes about using whatever is in vogue. ~i

ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY AS A CONDITION FOR THE

SPREAD OF ORGANIZATIONAL RECIPES

An important but often ignored condition for the establishmen_t and spread of
organizational recipes is that there are many organizations asking for such ideas. Just
as important, however, is that, in spite of their dif.ferences, organizations are perceived
to have much in common. More specifically, organizations must be trans~ormed from
the concrete level ( e.g. a ministry, a subordinate agency, a municipality, a publishing
company, an army unit, a hotel), where they appear to be completely different, toa
more abstract leve! where they can be perceived as fairly similar. It is via this more
($1
abstract system-identity as afarmal or9anizaticn that disparate enterprises, firms and
public administration units can appear to be alike. And it is precisely the notion of
"'·
such diverse units sharing an identity as organizations that has gained wide acceptance
w
11
~
·····-·-- · ··-- ·-·'·'"'"~ ··· · ____________________
...... .,.... ···-·········-·--------··-··---- ---- .............. ·- ~·
 //
A MYTH PERSPECTIVE
/
//.:/ definitions in the organization, the likelihood increases that implementation will be
attempted, The trajectory usually beF witb. an official decision to adopt.a recipe
/ · followed by attempts to interpret and adapt it to make it capable ofinfluencing some

I ofthe organization's activities.

Theorists are usually concerned with the two following questions in relation to
the meeting· between ideås, recipes and organizations: why are organizations.
motivated to adopt popular organizational recipes and what happens. when
'organizations try t o implex:rient such recipes?The first question has been addressed
by.Paul DiMaggi~ and Walter Powell, who have identified three dilferent reasons
for organizations to adopt recipes. The first is coercive adoption. This happens when
ari organization, perhaps via laws or regulations, is instructed to implement certain
redpes. In such a situation the organization has no other choice. 1bis applies, for
instance, to the EU-based instruction.to implementvarious forms ofinternal control
in public organizations. The second is normative!r based adoption. This refers to
' the kind of dissemination and adoption that ai:ises from the common norms, values,
knowledge and networks held or engaged in byvarious professional groups. Examples
of this can be the contribution of economist:s to spreading some of the basic ideas
associated with NPM, or physicians spreadingideas about 'evidence-based medicine'.
The third i~ mimetic adaption, which often occurs when organizations in situations
I !llarked by great uncertainty, try to emulate others which are perceived to be
I successful and prestigious. Usually this takes the form of imitation without much
I preliminary calculation and analy*. Consultancy finns often persuade public

I organizations to engage in this kind of adoption:

I • From ideus to practice: Taking a förmal decision to adopt popular organizational

recipes 9oes not necessar:ily mean they will be implemented. Different research
traditi9ns offer three possible processes and outcomes wlien organizations
I attempt to:implemeot recipes. These can be expr essed as theories about quick
·couplin9, rejection and decouplin9. The theory of quick coupling is mediated
exemplarily in popular management literature. Usually an optimistic scenario
is presented: the popular idea or recipe ~ be implemented relatively quickly
and will r ender· the e""Pected positive eff~ct:s. This r equires, however, that the
implementation processes are Carried out deliberately and according to rational
plans and principles. ~opular organizåtional recipes are for the most part
liOW RATIONALIZED RECIPES ARE ADOPTED AND · presented as folly d~veloped and tried-and-tested tools, ready for use and
IMPLEMENTED relatively easy to implement.
• P..ejection:Witbin a cultttral perspective, one finds a more sceptical and pessinus -
We shall now tum to what happens when ~tionalized myths 'meet' organizations. tic. scenario for wbat may be the outcome of attempts to implement popular
A recipe's journeyinto an organization can be called an adoption. This isa journey that organizatiooal ideas. In this tradition organizations are complex, value-based
I
often has neither a distinct beginning nor an end. It usually begins when someone in institutions generally able to $uccessfully resist reforms, especially attempts at
an organization (often in management) becomes aware of an ~rganizational recipe rapid cl:iange in structures and processes:The recipes.are accordingly preSented
and gets excited about it. If it looks like a promising solution 't:o local problem- as vague ideas, simplified and popularized, ~pped oftheir original contexts. -:t--'t
... _______ ______
,,
-- =
 A MYTH PERSPECTI VE
A MYTH PERSPECTIVE

popular organizational recipes. This is because the phenomena can be understood

When an attempt is made to implement them in complex organi2ations, in d.i.fferent ways, in light of an institutional approach (the approach taken in this
they w.ill often be revealed as incompatible and unsuitable. Sometimes they w.ill chapter) or from an instrumental perspective (see Chapter Nine).
clash w.ith the values an organization cares about and is committed to. This may If seen instrumentally and rationally, popular recipes are tried-and-tested tools
explain why hospitals and health-care uoits have generally had problems adopting leaders can use in trying to make organizations more effective. There isa strong belief
recipes directed towards achieving greater ef.ficiency. Popular organi2ational that they spring from practices that have worked well in one or, better still, several
recipes are also frequently revealed as being too unsaphisticated to handle the other orgamzations.The most popular and w.idely disseminated recipes are therefore
complexity of the organization's work processes. If the recipes do not Bt in perceived to have spread because they have shown themselves to be exceptional tools
these ways, they risk being rejected and attempts at implementation co~e to a for increasing efficiency, ideally in a !arge number oforganizations. When attempts
halt. are made to adopt recipes in individual organizations, this often happens as the .result
• Dccouplin9: Although popular concepts may be too vague or unsophisticated in ofa problem-dr:iven search for solutions.Accprding to this view, the organization first
relation to the complexities of an organization's tasks, or else perceived as out experiences problems and is motivated to search for solutions to match. Several
ofstep with basic values and norms within an organization, modern organizations potential solutions (recipes) are therefore usually assessed before one deemed good
w.ill nevertheless exper:ience pressure from the institutional environment to enough is chosen. Thereafter, efforts are made to thoroughly organize the imple-
incorporate them because they are seen as up-to-date and legitimate ideas and w,: mentation process in order to establish new routines and activities. If the choice is
recipes. This isa key argument ofNew lnstitutionalism .According to this theory, made to translate and change the chosen concept, itis done deliberately by calculating
modern organizations must deal with the following dilemma: on the one hand what is needed and what can be ignored.
they must be efficient, which often requires adhering to tried-and-tested From an institutional vantage point, however, organizational recipes appear as
solutions, and on the other hand, they must adopt the ideas and recipes perceived meaningful symbols. They have been interpreted and ascribed contents that extend
to be modern at the time, not least because these recipes have the potential to beyond merely being tools for effective problem solving. Institutionalized recipes
give the organization externa! legitimacy. One way of tackling this dilemma is are not 'just symbols•, they are rat.ionalized o/IDbols .This means that emphasis is placed
to adopt modern concepts, but to deliberately keep them decoupled, so that they on defining and presenting them as tools for enhancing efficiency and modernization.
have little effect on activities, or at any rate the activities that are significant for The claim is that popular organizational recipes have acquired legitimacy and the
the organization's ability to make decisions and to produce goods and services ability to spread because they have become symbols of basic rationalistic values in-
effectively. From this perspective, myths or recipes are ideas that lie on the modern society, for example reason, efficiency, democracy and science, and, as such,
surface of organizations like vamish and function as a kind of window dressing they are associated w.ith the traditional Western ideal of continual progress, that is,
intended to convince the environment that the organization is modern and the movement forwards and upwards towards some ever-better state of being. Yet
efficient, w.ithout it actually changing very much on the inside. Research on l'' w.ith that, this symbolic perspective also ties in w.ith the instrumental-rational
reforms in public organizations has shown, for example, ·that political and
administrative leaders frequently over-sell new reforms; they promise more
than can be delivered, whi.c h often intensilles the symbolic character and
decoupling of reforms.
Il
tradition in a complex way and makes it diflicult to imagine popular organizational
recipes either only as symbols or only as effective tools.
When a recipe is established as· a model, t;b,;s concerns much more than the extent
to which it has proven able to function as a tool for efficiency or effectiveness. As
mentioned earlier, a recipe is more likely to spread if it is successfully linked to
authoritative actors, such as progressive and modern COl.lPtries, companies, academic
fil;
~·~
1 \;
organizations and leaders. Moreover, modern society celebrates continuous renewal
and. change, not least actor s and organizations repres~nting technical innovations.
;_;. •J.
R~cipes therefore also acquire spreading power if they can be presented as symbols
RÅTIONA°uZED RECIPES IN iNSTRUMENTAL AND of the. new-anything that breaks w.ith older habits of purveying goods and services.
INSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS Recipe adoption, from an instrumental perspective, happens through search
processes conditioned by a problem, yet a symbolic interpretation also allows the
Many organizatio~ theorists have a·rather equivocal attitude towards the pheno-
mena presented in this ch~pter, namely. the creation, diffusion and adoption of
possibility that just the opposite may be the case. First, someone in an organization
becomes aware of and excited about a rationalized r ecip e and only then does he ör 1r
-- =
....·-·-----·- -·---- - ---- ·· - ----- - ----
---· --~ ------- -
 A MYTH PERSPECTIVE A MYTH PERSPECTIVE
---..---------·-----------·
...-....... ..... ..
-~

she 'discover' a local problem that can be adequately solved by implementing the
recipe. Yet even if a recipe is formally adopted, this does not ensure that it will be put
to use (accordingto the theory of decoupling between ideas and practice).And while REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
translation, interpreted instrumentally, appears to be an attempt to turn general
Brunsson, N. (1989; 2nd edn 2002) The Organization of Hypocrisy, Chichester: John
recipes into tools well-adapted to Iocal conditions, in the institutional-symbolic
Wiley; 2nd edn Oslo: Abstrakt.
interpretation, translation appears as a possible device for ensuring decoupling
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J. P. (1972) 'A Garbage Can Mode I of Organizational
between myths_ and practice, namely a recipe can be redesigned such that it poses no
Choice', Administrative Science Quarterly, 17( 1): 1-25.
threat to exisfug practices in the organization. ·
Czarniawska, B.and Joerges, ~- (1996) 'Travels of Ideas', in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevon
,, Translating Organizational Change, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Cedsl
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) 'The ! ron Cage Revis.ited: Institutional Iso-
morphism and Collective Rationality in OrganizationaJ Fields', American Socio-
CHAPTER SUMMARY logical Review, 48 (2): 147-60.
Drucker, P.F. (1954) ·The Practice of Management, New York: Harper.
• Organizations - private as well as public - are loeated in .institutional environ-
Hatch, M.J., Holten-Larsen, M. and Schultz, M. (2000) The Expressive Organization:
ments where they are confronted with socially created norms and recipes for
Linking Identity, Reputation and the Corporate Brand, Oxford: Oxford University
how they should be designed and ho,.; they should function. These norms and Press.
recipes are called myths.
Jacobsson, 8. (1994) 'Reformer och organisatorisk identitet'(' Reforms and Organizational
• There is a wide range of popular recipes for shaping all aspects of modern Identity'l in B.Jacobsson (ed.) Organisationsexperiment i kommuner och landsting
organizations, for .example leadership, forrnal organizational structure, organ- ( Organization Experiment in Local Government), Stockholm: Nerenius & Santerus.
izational ~lture, processes, etc. Popular organizational ideas usually spread Latour, B. (1986) 'The Powers of Association', in J. Law Ced.l Power, Action and Belief,
rapidly. A number of institutions and individuals function as producers and London: Rou'tledge & t<egan Paul.
mediators of such ideas.
March, J.G. and Olsen, J. P. (eds) ( 1976) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Bergen:.
•· The förmal adoption of popular recipes by public organizatlons. can have Universitetsforlaget.
numerous outcomes {quick coupling/implementation, rejection, decoupling
Meyer, J. w:and Rowan, B. Cl977l 'Institutional Organizations: Forma! Structure as Myth
or the 'slower' process of tr~slating ideas into practice). and Ceremony', American Journal of Sociofogy, 83 (2): 340-63.
Micklethwait, J . and Woolridge, A. (1996) The Witch Doctors: What the Management
Gurus are Saying, Why it Matters and How..to Make Sense ofit, London: Heinemann.
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneuria/
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Reading: Addison Wesley.
Parsons, T. (1956) 'Suggestions fora Sociological Approach to Theory of Organizations',
Identify and discuss factors that may cause organizations to adopt popular Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(ll:63:..Ss.
organizational recip~s (myths). Peters, T.J:and Waterman, R.H. (1982) In Search of Exce/Jence, New York: Harper & Row.
2 Choose a public-sector organization with which you are familiar ·and try to
R(<'lvik, K.A. (1996) 'Deinstitutionalization and the Logic of Fashion', in B. Czarniawska
identify which popular organizational recipes this org~zation has adopted and G. Sevon (eds) Translating Organizational Change, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
<luring the last five years.
- - (l998l Moderne Organisasjoner<Modern Organizationsl, Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
. 3 Identify and discuss factors that may aid or hinder the implementation of popular
organizational recipes, that is, the translation of such ideas inte practice in public - - (2002l 'The Secrets of the Winners: Management Ideas That Flow', in I(. Sahlin-
Andersson and L. Engwall (edsl The Expansion of Management Knowledge,
organizations.
Stånford: Stanford University Press.
- - C2007l Trender og translasjoner. Ideer som former de.t 21. arhundrets organisas-
.joner <Trends and translations. Ideas that form the 2lst century's organizationsl,
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

-- ~
+7