Reflections on actor-network theory, governance networks, and strategic outcomes.
Autor | Montenegro, Ludmilla Meyer |
Cargo | Essay |
Introduction
This essay's objective is to develop a deeper understanding of governance (its mechanisms and networks) and strategic outcomes, based upon governance network theory (Rhodes, 1997, 2007), strategic outcomes (Bulgacov, Souza, Prohmann, Coser, & Baraniuk, 2007; Matitz, 2009), strategy as practice (Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl, & Vaara, 2010; Johnson, Langley, Melin, & Whittington, 2007), and Actor-Network Theory (Latour, 1994a, 1994b, 1996a, 2000, 2001, 2005; Law, 1992; Wessells, 2007).
We suggest that the governance network theory is made more robust if non-human actors are included in its theoretical scope (Latour, 1994a, 1996b, 2000, 2001, 2005). Recent studies concerning the notion of heterogeneous networks have demonstrated the importance of non- human actors for understanding social and organizational phenomena (Andrade, 2005; Latour, 1994a, 1996b; Tureta, Rosa, & Santos, 2006; Wessells, 2007).
Denis, Langley and Rouleau (2007) compared potential contributions from social practice theories, convention theory and actor-network theory (Golsorkhi et al, 2010). According to Jarzabkowski (2010), the actor-network theory represents one viable approach for studying how non-human artifacts are engaged in Strategy as Practice.
It is important to clearly define what we mean by social. According to Ator- Network Theory (ANT), human actors are not the only actors that compose the social sphere, since non-human actors are also part of it (Latour, 1994b, 2001, 2005). Therefore, ANT's contribution to social theory is in the recognition that social actors and social relationships do not exist without non-human actors (Whittle & Spicer, 2008), and if studied in isolation from each other, important dynamics can be missed. Law (1992) also corroborates this issue by emphasizing that social is not simply human related. When Czarniawska (2003) explained social constructionism, she mentioned some authors (Berger, Luckmann, Latour, Rorty, Moscovici and others) that hold a similar definition of social. An artificial dichotomy should not be created between natural and social actors. And most importantly: material matters are included in this natural/social world.
Furthermore, some studies (Barad, 2003; Latour, 2004; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; Slife, 2004; Suchman, 2007) have shed light on the need to investigate the social aspects of organizations in their entirety, from a more holistic perspective. This means that material aspects should also be considered. This is from the idea that material aspects are not just tools to be used to accomplish tasks, but are also constitutive of both activities and identities (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). As Yanow (2006) described, policy implementation can be appreciated as a process by which agency and political meanings are communicated. This happens through artifacts: spoken and written language, of course, but also acts and objects, including physical structures, such as buildings, associated with agency.
It is important to highlight that, from this perspective, the strategic world constitutes a genuine social reality that is created and recreated in the interactions between multiple actors within and outside of organizations (Golsorkhi et al., 2010). Even though strategizing involves abstraction and the formulation of intentionality, it is still a socio-material and political process that involves the use of tools, especially language (Tsoukas, 2010). Due to this, histories, repertories, tools and artifacts which refer to strategy are not disproven by ambiguity; instead they should be reinterpreted given any new situation (Grand, Ruegg-Stiirm, & Arx, 2010).
As such, this work seeks to contribute to the thought and development of the Actor-Network Theory, to enhance understanding of strategic outcomes and organizational governance networks. Its empirical basis extends from the perspective of the actions and relationships of the multiple actors involved, both human and non-human.
These perspectives were chosen because we believe they recognize governance as focused on organizational beliefs, practices, traditions, and dilemmas. When combined with a network perspective, of public and private actors, strategy is seen as something that people within organizations do and not something that organizations have (Johnson et al., 2007). Moreover, non-human actors should also be considered and investigated, in addition to the human actors that comprise networks. This can possibly offer an improved comprehension of organizational realities.
Recent Debates on the Governance Theme
In the area of organizational studies and strategy, it is common to link the term governance with corporate governance. However, not all studies in this area are about corporate governance. Many times, focus is on governance that is more sociological in nature in order to investigate organizational phenomena.
It is important to clarify the term governance, since it is not easily understood. Indeed, in Political Science and Sociology there is still considerable debate about the most appropriate definition of the term. Hirst and Thompson (1995) believes that despite the ambiguity that permeates the term governance, the majority of definitions tend to converge on a notion of a post- policy resource for efficient regulation and responsibility. According to this author, many examples of the term governance refer to situations that reveal a true threat to conventional forms of democratic government or propose to leave democracy behind.
Even though governance isn't clearly defined, it has been extensively discussed. Olowu (2002) mentioned that discourse about governance has continued even while controversy over its definition has endured. For Ezzamel and Reed (2008) governance has emerged from a grand focus of continuous debates about the organizational practices and forms by which we live and order our lives. Hirst and Thompson (1995) asserts that the increase in the use of the governance concept can be seen as a reaction to changes in political practices, together with realities that are also changing. These involve, among other things, increasing globalization and networks that cross over the division between state and civil society. These developments demand discourse about how to govern in an ever more complex world. Kjaer (2004) also stresses that despite inherent problems with the theme, governance is a popular and contemporary topic. Envisioning governance as a process that extends beyond the notion of government goes beyond rehashing old ideas. It touches on political implications of social change, since it shifts to a new focus on political institutions in a constantly changing world.
It is important to note that currently, governance is not used as a synonym for government, as governance actually signifies a change in the meaning of government. It refers to a process for governing, a modified condition of the ordered rule, or a new method by which society is governed (Rhodes, 1997). According to the same logic, Kjaer (2004) emphasizes that government assumes a subject (actor), while governance is the result of completed actions as a form of social coordination. Thus, the concept of governance is more closely associated with a procedural and result-oriented logic, which coincides with the other approaches used in this article: Actor-Network Theory (Latour, 1994a, 1996b) and strategic outcomes (Bulgacov et al., 2007; Matitz, 2009).
The notion of government isn't enough to explain some questions about what happens in organizations. This process for governing involves questions about the daily life in organizations, many times about informal aspects that occur in quotidian organizational activities.
Another clear point of distinction between governance and government is that governance is a wider phenomenon. That is because it doesn' t just include governmental organizations, but also informal and non-governmental mechanisms (Kjaer, 2004; Rhodes, 1997). Actually, governance can occur without government when regulatory mechanisms function effectively within a sphere of activity, even though formal authority isn't present.
Notions about Governance Networks
The notion of governance as network practices comes from Rhodes (2007): A decentred approach undercuts the idea of network steering as a set of tools by we can manage governance. If governance is constructed differently, contingently and continuously, we cannot have a tool kit for managing it. This line of reasoning challenges the idea of expertise as a basis for policymaking. An interpretive approach encourages us to give up management techniques and strategies for a practice of learning by telling stories and listening to them (p. 1257). Governance in the form of self-organized networks doesn't seem to occur through planning. These networks are self-forming and, based upon observations, are gaining more strength and autonomy over time. Use of the concept of governance networks is increasing (Sorensen & Torfing, 2005). It is clear that a shift is occurring and that it will intensify in the future. Recent statements by various authors (Hirst & Thompson, 1995; Sorensen & Torfing, 2005) show that it doesn't make sense to turn back, revise questioning, or reconstruct the initial concept of government. At this moment what seems crucial to understanding this movement is to try to identify and comprehend these networks, map the governance mechanisms involved, and define the public and private actors that participate, all through empirical research.
Sorensen and Torfing (2005) introduced some positive points for instigating research into governance from the network perspective, such as: (a) governance networks have great potential for proactive governance, in that multiple actors are more capable of quickly identifying new opportunities and problematic policies, and also to produce flexible responses that correspond to the complexity and variety of fixed...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.