IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/scaman/v34y2018i2p151-161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unlikely allies: Bureaucracy as a cultural trope in a grassroots volunteer organization

Author

Listed:
  • Florian, Mona

Abstract

This article investigates the role of bureaucratic organizing in a grassroots volunteer organization, which emerged during the so-called refugee crisis in an emergency refugee shelter in Germany. Most research agrees that this type of organization is by definition counter-bureaucratic. In the organization I studied, however, volunteers adopted, accepted and acclaimed bureaucratic organizing as the only, natural and self-evident way of making the grassroots work. Drawing on ethnographic research, my analysis unravels how bureaucracy became a common frame of reference that allowed the volunteers to self-organize despite their different motivations, attitudes and social backgrounds. To theorize these findings, the paper draws on the concept of a cultural trope. In so doing, it offers a more nuanced understanding of bureaucracy in grassroots volunteer organizations that might stimulate scholars to rethink its role in other fluid, dynamic and value-driven organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Florian, Mona, 2018. "Unlikely allies: Bureaucracy as a cultural trope in a grassroots volunteer organization," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 151-161.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:scaman:v:34:y:2018:i:2:p:151-161
    DOI: 10.1016/j.scaman.2018.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956522117302750
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.03.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul S. Adler & Seok-Woo Kwon & Charles Heckscher, 2008. "Perspective---Professional Work: The Emergence of Collaborative Community," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 359-376, April.
    2. Styhre, Alexander & Lind, Frida, 2010. "The softening bureaucracy: Accommodating new research opportunities in the entrepreneurial university," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 107-120, June.
    3. Prouteau, Lionel & Wolff, François-Charles, 2008. "On the relational motive for volunteer work," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 314-335, June.
    4. Dan Kärreman & Stefan Sveningsson & Mats Alvesson, 2002. "The Return of the Machine Bureaucracy? - Management Control in the Work Settings of Professionals," International Studies of Management & Organization, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(2), pages 70-92, January.
    5. Martin Kornberger & Renate E. Meyer & Christof Brandtner & Markus A. Höllerer, 2017. "When Bureaucracy Meets the Crowd : Studying “Open Government” in the Vienna City Administration," Post-Print hal-02311976, HAL.
    6. Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 3-21, February.
    7. Forrest Briscoe, 2007. "From Iron Cage to Iron Shield? How Bureaucracy Enables Temporal Flexibility for Professional Service Workers," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 297-314, April.
    8. Georg Schreyögg & Jörg Sydow, 2010. "CROSSROADS---Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1251-1262, December.
    9. Karen Golden-Biddle & Hayagreeva Rao, 1997. "Breaches in the Boardroom: Organizational Identity and Conflicts of Commitment in a Nonprofit Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(6), pages 593-611, December.
    10. Kallinikos, Jannis, 2004. "The social foundations of the bureaucratic order," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 162, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Chen, Katherine K., 2009. "Enabling Creative Chaos," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226102375, December.
    12. Celeste P. M. Wilderom & John B. Miner, 1991. "Defining Voluntary Groups and Agencies Within Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(4), pages 366-378, November.
    13. Efrat Eizenberg, 2012. "The Changing Meaning of Community Space: Two Models of NGO Management of Community Gardens in New York City," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 106-120, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sandro Serpa & Carlos Miguel Ferreira, 2019. "The Concept of Bureaucracy by Max Weber," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 7(2), pages 12-18, March.
    2. Damianus Abun & Theogenia Magallanes & Editha B. Acidera & Mary Joy Encarnacion & Carol U. Domingcil, 2021. "Work Environment and work Engagement of Employees of the Catholic Colleges in the Ilocos Region, Philippines," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 19(1), pages 439-464, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul S. Adler, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—The Sociological Ambivalence of Bureaucracy: From Weber via Gouldner to Marx," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 244-266, February.
    2. Ofer Arazy & Johannes Daxenberger & Hila Lifshitz-Assaf & Oded Nov & Iryna Gurevych, 2016. "Turbulent Stability of Emergent Roles: The Dualistic Nature of Self-Organizing Knowledge Coproduction," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 792-812, December.
    3. Ghita Dragsdahl Lauritzen, 2020. "Looking beyond formal organization: How public managers organize voluntary work by adapting to deviance," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 467-481, May.
    4. Melissa A. Valentine & Amy C. Edmondson, 2015. "Team Scaffolds: How Mesolevel Structures Enable Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Groups," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 405-422, April.
    5. Hanisch, Bastian & Wald, Andreas, 2014. "Effects of complexity on the success of temporary organizations: Relationship quality and transparency as substitutes for formal coordination mechanisms," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 197-213.
    6. Vegard Kolbjørnsrud, 2018. "Collaborative organizational forms: on communities, crowds, and new hybrids," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Kreutzer, Karin & Rueede, Dominik, 2019. "Organizational identity consistency in a discontinuous corporate volunteering program," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 455-467.
    8. Carlos Martin-Rios, 2016. "Innovative management control systems in knowledge work: a middle manager perspective," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 181-204, May.
    9. Manning, Stephan, 2017. "The rise of project network organizations: Building core teams and flexible partner pools for interorganizational projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1399-1415.
    10. Yildiz, H. Emre & Murtic, Adis & Zander, Udo, 2024. "Re-conceptualizing absorptive capacity: The importance of teams as a meso-level context," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    11. Dominik M. Wielgos & Christian Homburg & Christina Kuehnl, 2021. "Digital business capability: its impact on firm and customer performance," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 762-789, July.
    12. Thomas Akintayo & Niina Häkälä & Katja Ropponen & Elsa Paronen & Sari Rissanen, 2016. "Predictive Factors for Voluntary and/or Paid Work among Adults in their Sixties," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1387-1404, September.
    13. Cirillo, Valeria & Rinaldini, Matteo & Staccioli, Jacopo & Virgillito, Maria Enrica, 2018. "Workers’ awareness context in Italian 4.0 factories," GLO Discussion Paper Series 240, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    14. Lise Arena & Anthony Hussenot, 2021. "From Innovations at Work to Innovative Ways of Conceptualizing Organization: A Brief History of Organization Studies," Post-Print hal-03290300, HAL.
    15. Gerald C. Kane & Jeremiah Johnson & Ann Majchrzak, 2014. "Emergent Life Cycle: The Tension Between Knowledge Change and Knowledge Retention in Open Online Coproduction Communities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3026-3048, December.
    16. Deist, Maximilian K. & McDowell, William C. & Bouncken, Ricarda B., 2023. "Digital units and digital innovation: Balancing fluidity and stability for the Creation, Conversion, and Dissemination of sticky knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    17. Irina Jormanainen & Alexei Koveshnikov, 2012. "International Activities of Emerging Market Firms," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 691-725, October.
    18. Youchung Kwon & Bo Kyung Kim, 2024. "When we unite, not divide: status homophily, group average status, and group performance in the Korean film industry," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 9-31, February.
    19. Erik Van Ingen & Matthijs Kalmijn, 2010. "Does Voluntary Association Participation Boost Social Resources?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(2), pages 493-510, June.
    20. Greta Hsu & Kimberly D. Elsbach, 2013. "Explaining Variation in Organizational Identity Categorization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 996-1013, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:scaman:v:34:y:2018:i:2:p:151-161. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/872/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.