Är delaktighet möjlig i en byråkrati? : en fallstudie inom Försvarsmakten av det arbete som föregick försvarsbeslut -96

This thesis is about the conflict between participation and bureaucracy. This conflict is illustrated by a case study within the Swedish Armed Forces under the activity that preceded the 1996 Resolution on Defence. More closely it focuses on the decision-making process that led to the Swedish Armed Forces report that were handed over to the Government in March 1996. In this decision-making process the Supreme Commander tried different ways to create participation among all the high- ranking officers, from local up to Headquarters level, to make them participate in the process. The thesis answers the question if it is possible to create participation in a bureau­cratic organisation such as the Swedish Armed Forces, and the conclusion that I draw is that participation is hard to establish. First there is a conflict within the bureaucratic form itself, since a bureaucracy implies a diversification of assignments and responsibilities in different functions and at different levels in a hierarchy. Every level has its own task to fulfil and this states how reality is to be understood. In the Swedish Armed Forces the bureaucratic structure is reinforced by the fact that the officer is promoted to a higher rank after his or her military training. Both the bureaucratic structure and the military training will lead to a differentiation between individuals, and they will be placed in different skills and status levels within the organisation. Besides this, individuals will gather information mostly from their own level, which will further fortify the difference between the levels. Furthermore there are also individual factors connected to the bureaucratic structure that have shown to complicate participation. For example individuals choose not to participate since they experience that they lack necessary competens for the task, that they do not have time, that they have not been consulted or that they consider the task to be solved at a higher level. So even if the military decision-making model encourages and advocates partici­pation, there is a big difficulty to break the bureaucratic design. Leaders often show inability to go from a bureaucratic leadership style to a democratic one. At the same time the subordinate support their leaders when they act as a traditional leader.digitalisering@um

Är delaktighet möjlig i en byråkrati? : en fallstudie inom Försvarsmakten av det arbete som föregick försvarsbeslut -96

This thesis is about the conflict between participation and bureaucracy. This conflict is illustrated by a case study within the Swedish Armed Forces under the activity that preceded the 1996 Resolution on Defence. More closely it focuses on the decision-making process that led to the Swedish Armed Forces report that were handed over to the Government in March 1996. In this decision-making process the Supreme Commander tried different ways to create participation among all the high- ranking officers, from local up to Headquarters level, to make them participate in the process. The thesis answers the question if it is possible to create participation in a bureau­cratic organisation such as the Swedish Armed Forces, and the conclusion that I draw is that participation is hard to establish. First there is a conflict within the bureaucratic form itself, since a bureaucracy implies a diversification of assignments and responsibilities in different functions and at different levels in a hierarchy. Every level has its own task to fulfil and this states how reality is to be understood. In the Swedish Armed Forces the bureaucratic structure is reinforced by the fact that the officer is promoted to a higher rank after his or her military training. Both the bureaucratic structure and the military training will lead to a differentiation between individuals, and they will be placed in different skills and status levels within the organisation. Besides this, individuals will gather information mostly from their own level, which will further fortify the difference between the levels. Furthermore there are also individual factors connected to the bureaucratic structure that have shown to complicate participation. For example individuals choose not to participate since they experience that they lack necessary competens for the task, that they do not have time, that they have not been consulted or that they consider the task to be solved at a higher level. So even if the military decision-making model encourages and advocates partici­pation, there is a big difficulty to break the bureaucratic design. Leaders often show inability to go from a bureaucratic leadership style to a democratic one. At the same time the subordinate support their leaders when they act as a traditional leader.digitalisering@um

Women's invisible work in disaster contexts : gender norms in speech on women's work after a forest fire in Sweden

The aim of this study is to investigate what women do in disaster situations and how both men and women perceive and discuss the work of women. These patterns were evidenced in the stories that were told following the largest forest fire in the modern history of Sweden in July 2014. The study is based on 31 retrospective interviews with volunteers involved in combating the forest fire and concentrates on stories about the supportive work of women during this disaster. The results indicate that women were praised when they followed traditional norms but were denigrated when they performed what were viewed as male-coded tasks. The stories reveal norms concerning what a woman is and is not by focusing on women's age and clothing and by directly and indirectly questioning their abilities and authority. The norms are also rendered visible by the positive attention that women receive while describing doing what is expected of them

Leader Normativity in Crisis Management : Tales From a School Fire

This study examines the handling of a school fire in a rural Swedish community and the role of the normalized narratives of leaders in crisis management. The article claims that leader normativity legitimizes certain positions and actions in a crisis management narrative and marginalizes others. The study uses theories on gender, boundary work and space to illuminate this claim. To explore such processes in narratives, we use feminist theory and critical management studies. The study shows that leader normativity creates gendered differences that result in both inequalities and the marginalization of any parts of crisis management that do not apply to leader normativity. The study shows that there is a strong norm of crisis management as an individualistic perspective that focuses on heroes and higher-level management as the people managing a crisis. Support for describing crisis management as a collective achievement and caring perspectives become marginalized.