The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions, Actions in Organizations, 2nd edn - Book Review

Nils Brunsson: The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions, Actions in Organizations, 2nd edn

2002, Norway: Abstrackt/Liber. 242 pages.

Some book titles make a greater impact than their contents. The wholesalers of management learning read the title and the dust jacket, and imbue it with a meaning of their own. This saves time, but loses subtlety. That may have been the fate of the first edition of this brilliantly titled book. Non-academic visitors to my office over the past 13 years have regularly picked it up and commented that this must be a management book which relates to the world as they know it. Then they put it back on the shelf.

The second edition of this book reveals something about how the field of organization studies has changed since the first edition in 1989, and it does so because it is not a second edition in the usual sense. It is a complete reprint of the original text, with the addition of a half-page preface and a seven-page introduction. The publisher has changed, so it seems likely that this edition is intended to respond to a continuing demand for the book for teaching purposes.

In this review I shall reflect on three things: first, the book itself, because it remains an influential and important book; second, what Brunsson' s introduction tells us about how his own thinking has changed or focused since the publication of the first edition, and thus what might have been different if he were re-writing it for a second edition; third, what the book tells us about directions in organization studies since it was written.

Brunsson starts by differentiating between action organizations and political organizations. Organizations have to handle increasingly inconsistent norms in their environments. The dominant approach at the time of publication of the first edition was that conflicts should be resolved, and should not be allowed to get in the way of efficient operation in the organization. Action was favoured over political behaviour in organizations, conflict was regarded as negative, and solutions were preferred to problems. The residue of this culture can be seen in the number of companies still offering 'solutions' as their product. In contrast, Brunsson says:

'I suggest that it may be useful for the organization to cultivate and demonstrate its conflicts. It is sometimes said that organizations are geared to the solution or avoidance of problems. I shall show that they also have good reason to create and maintain problems; to have problems is often a vital solution for an organization, whereas solutions can sometimes be a serious problem.' (p. 10)

Why this emphasis on the value of problems rather than solutions? One of the strong features of Brunsson's work is that he organizes his arguments very cogently, and you often find that your questions are answered a few pages later, and with more richness than if they were answered earlier. In this case, part of his reasoning for valuing problems over solutions is as follows:

'Insoluble problems are a splendid vehicle for the reflection of many ideas and values. They can be endlessly discussed from all sorts of angles and without ever reaching a conclusion. Solutions that can reflect an equal variety of ideas are rare indeed.' (p. 23)

He argues that the 'action organization', the one where achieving action is the main ground for legitimacy, 'makes people narrower or stupider than they were before they joined it' (p. 16). This happens because 'the action organization cultivates a spirit of enthusiasm rather than criticism' (p. 19). This remains valid. The other side of this coin is that the political organization tends to produce a sense of depression, arising from engaging with problems that it cannot solve and from being uncertain about its environment.

One of the benefits of the political organization is that it can win resources 'by associating itself with several interests and demonstrating their incorporation into its own being' (p. 31), and this brings us to the second word of the subtitle: decisions. These are the links between talk and action, and Brunsson' s view of them still has plenty to offer in an organizational world which remains too easily impressed by decisiveness. He suggests that decisions are particularly important when those making them are not in full agreement, which is not surprising, and goes on to argue that decisions are very often a substitute for exerting influence. Decision making is often governed by the led, not the leaders, and is a substitute for the more effective processes of influence that are possible when the problem is kept open. He suggests that a lot of decision makers are defensive scrutineers; they scan for things which could do them significant damage, and resist those, but that is as near as they get to decision making.

This brings us to the theme of hypocrisy. Talk, decisions and actions are not necessarily aligned with each other, and Brunsson shows with detailed examples from his data that this is not because of individual duplicity or incompetence, but is a necessary and beneficial part of organizational life. Hypocrisy is not an accident; 'it has even been argued that organizations sometimes make decisions in order to avoid action, that decisions may relieve people of the burden of acting, and that decisions may obstruct action.' (p. 176). He suggests that the organization does not so much influence its environment as accept responsibility for it. Organizational leaders may be inconsistent over time, i.e. they might change their minds and they might learn, but they are still expected to take responsibility for past actions and decisions. The book is full of such subtle, insightful and counter-intuitive observations, well grounded in his research.