Pennink, B.J.W.

University of Groningen

   University of GroningenSamen managen met beeldenPennink, B.J.W.IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2004Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Pennink, B. J. W. (2004). Samen managen met beelden: het ontwikkelen van een model. s.n.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 12-11-2019SUMMARYINTRODUCTIONThe central theme of this thesis is of the development of a management model inwhich images play a central role. Two questions will be examined. The first questionis: what forms do images take? This question is answered in paragraph 3. The secondquestion is: what role do images play in cooperation? This question is answered inparagraph 4. In paragraph 2 we begin with a description of the methodology used, andin the final paragraph we give a brief summary of the recommendations.METHODOLOGYThe study is based on the multi-method approach we have developed. This approachcomprises our own interpretation of the method developed by Brewer and Hunter(1989). Our approach in this explorative study is based on the use of empiricalmaterial gathered by ourselves as well as by others.We advance three arguments to support this method. In the first place, a greatdeal of the research had to be carried out alongside other commitments. A consider-able amount of time can be saved by using other researchers’ material. The secondargument is that we were – and are – convinced that it should be possible to use otherresearchers’ material in our study. This extends the validity of empirical material. Thethird argument is that using the material of other researchers encourages one todevelop one’s own insights because, each time one uses such material, it is necessaryto justify the use of a particular data set in one’s own research. Our study ultimately comprised 16 sub-studies, 4 of which we carried out our-selves (see section 2.5).WHAT FORMS DO IMAGES TAKE?The first question is: what forms do images take? The answer is in four parts:Summary234The concept: imageThe study assumes that managers have formed their own picture of their organizationand its environment and that they use that picture and goal interpretations toformulate rational considerations for realising the goals.In order to create a model of this type of ‘picture’, we have introduced the term‘image’ (see section 3.2):An image is a model in the mind of a manager, on the basis of which he will act(or is acting, or has acted) at a given moment.By linking images to actions, we are following in the footsteps of Weick (1995).Weick concentrated in particular on the process of ‘sensemaking’ (see section 1.5.1);we concentrate on the result of a process.Goal imagesWe can use management theory to sketch action as the result of considering informa-tion from within that system, external information, and goals. In this study we areconcerned with images of the system and the external environment. We also introduceimages of goals (section 6.2). The images of goals within the Control Organ  Con-trolled System model are analogous to the images of system and environment that arethe basis for management in the Control Organ. Managers form images not only ofinformation within and outside the organization, but also of their goals. Just as withimages of the organization and external environment, the similarities and contrastsbetween the goal images of different managers can also be considered.With the concept of goal image we follow in the footsteps of Barnard (1945). Inhis work he emphasized that people have a ‘view of the purpose’ and that it is pos-sible to have differences between these views (see section 5.3).Eight properties of an imageIn our study we developed eight properties based on a large number of cases (seeChapter 2). These properties relate to the images of a system and environment at least.The relevance of applying the properties to goal images will be examined later (seechapter 7).The properties are divided into two categories. The first category relates to thestructure of the image and the second category relates to how it is dealt with. Thedescriptions of the properties have been illustrated with managers’ responses to thefollowing question: what images come to mind when you think about your company?The structural properties are:- The extent of the detail: the extent of the detail relates to the number ofSummary 235details used to describe the image. One of the managers answered: “Innova-tive, dynamic, young, aggressive, family company, technology-driven,specialist.” This answer contains a whole series of qualifications. In thecontext of this study, the answer contains many details.- The number of dimensions: the extent to which an image is expressed usingone or more dimensions. One of the answers was as follows: “efficient organ-ization, customer-driven approach towards purchasing as well as sales, andstrongly committed employees.” This is similar to the previous answer in thatseveral qualifications are given. However, the first and the last relate to theorganization, and the middle qualification relates to the company’s approachto the external environment. In the context of this study, these constitutedifferent dimensions.- Abstraction: the level of abstraction used in a description. This is illustratedin the last part of the following answer: “competitive, modern, possibly toomany overheads.” In the context of this study, ‘possibly too many overheads’is a less abstract description than the others.- Aggregation: the extent to which the manager is aware of the aggregationlevel of the image. In the answer: “What comes to mind is a flexible andefficient organization in which I have a part to play”, the manager indicatesthat he is aware of the existence of an organization, which he typifies asflexible and efficient (= his image), and that he is part of that organization.He thus distinguishes between his image of the organization and his image ofhimself.  - Normative: the extent to which the manager makes a value judgment. Thefollowing answer illustrates this property: “stable, decent, flexible, friendly.”Each word is normative.The properties relating to acting on images are:- Changeability: the extent to which an image can change. One manager gavethe following answer ‘was: solution-oriented but expensive. Is: a perfect pro-duct, “always” on time’. Here, the manager indicates that his image of thecompany has changed. - ‘Gestalt’: awareness of a ‘Gestalt’.  One manager answered: “Young/small,but with a grown-up problem.” In this answer, the manager describes a‘Gestalt’: his image is based on an awareness that the company is in dif-ficulty.- Reticulation: the way in which the structural properties are combined,especially the first four: the level of detail, the number of dimensions, theSummary236abstraction and the level of aggregation. In the answer illustrating theproperty ‘detail’, words such as ‘dynamic’ and ‘young’ are also normative.A qualification such as ‘family company’ can also be seen as another dimen-sion, and ‘technology-driven’ is less abstract than the other descriptions.Images and their channelling effectWe have described the relationship between the large amount of information and theresulting image as a process of ‘distillation’ (trechterwerking). The ‘distillation’ is theprocess by which a manager selects parts of the large flow of information he receives,and forms an image based on that selection (see section 6.3). The distillation processis not always a conscious process.The distillation process that results in goal images requires further discussion.  Inthis case, we refer to the process that takes place as ‘reverse distillation’. The managerforms an image based on a goal or objective. The process of translating an objectiveinto a concrete situation involves a ‘broadening’. A limited description is used toform a broader description: the ‘funnel’ through which images are distilled is inverted(see paragraph 6.3).THE ROLE OF IMAGES IN COOPERATIONThe second question addressed in this study is: what role do images play when peoplecooperate? The answer has three elements:The concept: image sphereDescribing how managers work together and think about images raises complexissues. Take, for example, a situation in which several managers are considering theirown company and assessing the environment in which it operates in order to makedecisions about which direction the company should take. In terms of images, weassume the following: managers have their own image of the company, they mayhave an image about the image that fellow managers have of the company, an imageabout the shared image of the company, and an image about others’ images of thatimage. In short, many different images are possible.In order to examine such situations systematically, we have introduced the term‘beeldruimte’ (image sphere). See paragraph 6.4. This term denotes thepsychological/virtual space occupied by the various images. The concept of image sphere can be of assistance when developing the process ofSummary 237imaginization as described by Morgan (1993). Starting from the concept of imagesphere, explicit attention is paid to the relationship between the mutual images ofindividual managers as well as to the relationship between the images of individualmanagers and the images of a team. Insight into these relationships can contribute tothe process of imaginization, in which changes in thinking, and thus in images, arecrucial.  What is the basis for cooperation?Cooperation is more than interaction between people (see Chapter 5). When peoplecooperate, they have a common goal. We have also concluded that joint considerationis a basis for cooperation in terms of forming a common image on which to work. Wedefine the third element of cooperation as ‘connecting with each other’, i.e.consultation, motivation and the creation of a common platform. Finally, cooperationimplies that the parties involved expect each other to continue working towardscommon goals in the future. Cooperation therefore also implies commonly heldexpectations relating to future conduct.This definition fits in well with the difference drawn by Habermas (1989)between strategic and communicative action. In strategic action, the acting managertakes account of others from his own rational standpoint, which is not a point ofdiscussion. In communicative action, managers take each others’ opinions into ac-count, but are also prepared to discuss their own rational viewpoints and tailor themto each other (see section 5.4). Isaacs (1999) adds that conducting dialogue is a suit-able form to realize the tailoring and creation of a joint goal. This joint goal does notcreate itself. The managers involved will have to work hard to achieve it (see section1.5.5).Management illustrated through ‘Control Organ Controlled  System’ role-playIn this study we have extended the ‘Control Organ Controlled System’ role-play byincorporating the image sphere in the Control Organ and by replacing informationflows with images (see section 5.5.4.). We have also extended this by distinguishingbetween situations in which managers act together strategically or communicatively(see section 6.2). In the former case managers make joint decisions about manage-ment measures. In the latter case, managers consult each other and make jointdecisions on the management measures and their images of the system, environmentand goals. To summarize, the additions consist of the concepts ‘images’, ‘imagesphere’, a graphic representation and qualifying decision-making processes (strategicand communicative) resulting in management measures.Summary238RECOMMENDATIONSWe have identified three possible areas for further research.In the first place, it would be useful to expand the research methodology we havedeveloped (see paragraph 7.4.1). Research can be carried out more efficiently byusing the material of other researchers, thereby extending the validity of the researchmaterial. In the second place, it would be useful to examine the basis of cooperation inmore detail. What does cooperation involve? (See paragraph 7.4.2). In this context itwould be helpful to develop the concept of the ‘image sphere’. Third, we would recommend further research, within the framework of manage-ment theory, into the management team as an executive body. Images, the distillationprocess and image sphere are concepts that may shed new light on the powers of amanagement team as an executive body (see paragraph 7.4.3).

Samen managen met beelden:het ontwikkelen van een model

https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/13173521/summary.pdf

Samen managen met beelden:het ontwikkelen van een model

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Groningen