Konkurujące logiki instytucjonalne w zarządzaniu kulturą

Przemysław G. Hensel

Abstrakt

Competing institutional logics and the management of culture

The methods and tools borrowed from the private sector, such as planning, cost-benefit analysis, quality management, and many others, seem to be indispensable in the management of art organizations such as museums, galleries, and theatres. However, the use of such methods increases the legitimization of business logic within the realm of culture and may bring on detrimental consequences. In this paper the competing logics perspective is employed to analyze this problem by showing the main tension lines between the institutional logics present in the sphere of culture. Specifically, the tensions between the bureaucratic, cultural, and market logics are analyzed. The paper ends with a number of suggestions regarding the future of institutional logics conflict in the realm of culture.
 

Słowa kluczowe: logika instytucjonalna, konflikt, rynek, biurokracja
References

Ackoff R.L., Re-Creating the Corporation. A Design of Organizations for the 21st Century, New York–Oxford 1999.

Battilana J., Dorado S., Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations, „Academy of Management Journal” 2010, 53(6), s. 1419–1440.

Bevir M., Governance [w:] M. Bevir (red.), Encyclopedia of Governance, Thousand Oaks 2007, t. 1, s. 364–381.

Born G., Uncertain Vision. Birt, Dyke and the Reinvention of the BBC, London 2005.

Carnegie G.D., West B.P., Making accounting accountable in the public sector, „Critical Perspectives on Accounting” 2005, 16(7), s. 905–928.

Chiaravalloti F., Performance Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector: A Story of Accounting at Its Margins, „Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society” 2014, 44(2), s. 61–89.

Chiaravalloti F., Piber M., Ethical Implications of Methodological Settings in Arts Management Research: The Case of Performance Evaluation, „Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society” 2011, 41(4), s. 240–266.

Czarniawska B., Zmiana kadru. Jak zarządzano Warszawą w okresie przemian, Warszawa 2014.

Friedland R., Alford R.R., Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions [w:] W.W. Powell, P.J. DiMaggio (red.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago 1991, s. 232–263.

Froud J., Johal S., Leaver A., Phillips R., Williams K., Stressed by Choice: A Business Model Analysis of the BBC, „British Journal of Management” 2009, 20, s. 252–264.

Hensel P., Transfer wzorców zarządzania. Studium organizacji sektora publicznego, Warszawa 2008.

Hensel P. Przyczyny popularności Nowego Zarządzania Publicznego, „Kwartalnik Nauk o Przedsiębiorstwie” 2010, 4(17), s. 31–42.

Hensel P., Glinka B., Urzędnicy i przedsiębiorcy. Kulturowe bariery współpracy, Warszawa 2012.

Hood C., The Art of the State. Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management, Oxford 1998.

Jarzabkowski P., Matthiesen J., Van de Ven A., Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism [w:] T.B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, B. Leca (red.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, Cambridge 2009, s. 284–316.

Jay J., Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations, „Academy of Management Journal” 2013, 56(1), s. 137–159.

Kwiatkowski M., Konkurs jako instytucja fasadowa. Analiza ocen formułowanych przez uczestników procesów kadrowych w sektorze publicznym, „Studia Socjologiczne” 2013, (1), s. 95–120.

McPherson C.M., Sauder M., Logics in Action: Managing Institutional Complexity in a Drug

Court, „Administrative Science Quarterly” 2013, 58(2), s. 165–196.

Merton R.K., Bureaucratic Structure and Personality, „Social Forces” 1940, 18(4), s. 560–568.

Meuleman L., Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets. The Feasibility of Designing and Managing Governance Style Combinations, Heidelberg 2008.

Meyer J.W., Rowan B., Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, „American Journal of Sociology” 1977, 83(2), s. 340–363.

Mintzberg H., Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Englewood Cliffs 1983.

Pache A.-C., Santos F., When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands, „Academy of Management Review” 2010, 35(3), s. 455–476.

Pache A.-C., Santos F., Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Conflicting Institutional Logics, „Academy of Management Journal” 2013, 56(4), s. 972–1001.

Pollitt C., Dan S., Searching for Impacts in Performance-Oriented Management Reform, „Public Performance & Management Review”, 2013, 37(1), s. 7–32.

Reay T., Hinings C.R., The Recomposition of an Organizational Field: Health Care in Alberta, „Organization Studies” 2005, 26(3), s. 351–384.

Reay T., Hinings C.R, Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics, „Organization Studies” 2009, 30(6), s. 629–652.

Thornton P.H., The Rise of the Corporation in a Craft Industry: Conflict and Conformity in Institutional Logics, „Academy of Management Journal” 2002, 45(1), s. 81–101.

Thornton P.H., Ocasio W., Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958–1990, „American Journal of Sociology” 1999, 105(3), s. 801–844.

Townley B., The Role of Competing Rationalities in Institutional Change, „Academy of Management Journal” 2002, 45(1), s. 163–179.

Van Gestel N., Hillebrand B., Explaining Stability and Change: The Rise and Fall of Logics in Pluralistic Fields, „Organization Studies” 2011, 32(2), s. 231–252.

Weber M., Gospodarka i społeczeństwo. Zarys socjologii rozumiejącej, Warszawa 1922/2002.
 

Kwartalnik "Zarządzanie w Kulturze" ukazuje się w sposób ciągły on-line.

Pierwotną wersją czasopisma jest wersja elektroniczna publikowana kwartalnie w internecie.