«O retorno é o Movimento do Tao»: Uma abordagem dialéctica da eficácia organizacional

 

Miguel Pina e Cunha¹

Arménio Rego²

 

Resumo: Frequentemente, as discussões sobre a eficácia organizacional transmitem a ideia de que algumas organizações são mais eficazes do que outras. Neste trabalho, o ponto de partida é distinto: algumas organizações estão mais eficazes que outras. A eficácia é vista, por conseguinte, como um processo e não como um resultado estável. Para explorar esta perspectiva dinâmica, recorremos à filosofia chinesa do taoísmo. Algumas noções simples são usadas para discutir como eficácia e ineficácia, mais do que estados independentes, podem afinal ser as duas faces de um mesmo processo.

Palavras­‑chave: eficácia, ineficácia, taoísmo, processos organizacionais, paradoxos.

 

Inversion is the Movement of the Tao: A dialectical analysis of organizational effecttiveness

Abstract: Discussions on organizational effectiveness frequently transmit the idea that some organizations are more effective than others. In this work we challenge this idea and suggest that some organizations may be more effective than others but are becoming something else. Effectiveness is viewed, as such, as a process rather than as a stable state. To explore this perspective, we use the ancient Chinese philosophy of Taoism. Some simple notions are considered to discuss how effectiveness and efficiency, more than independent states, can instead be taken as two faces of the same process.

Key‑words: effectiveness, in­‑effectiveness, taoism, paradoxes, organizational processes.

 

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text only available in PDF format.

 

Referências

Banner, D. K. & Gagné, T. E. (1995). Designing effective organizations: traditional and transformational views. Thousand Oaks: Sage.        [ Links ]

Baumard, P. & Starbuck, W. H. (2005). Learning from failures: why it may not happen. Long Range Planning, 38, 281­‑298.

Bruch, H. & Ghoshal, S. (2003). Unleashing organizational energy. MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall, 45­‑51.

Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539­‑553.

Cameron, K. S. (1984). The effectiveness of ineffectiveness. Research in Organiza­tional Behavior, 6, 235­‑285.

Capra, F. (1975). The Tao of physics. New York: Wildwood Press.

Chia, R. (2005). Peripheral vision and the entrepreneurial imagination. Trabalho apresentado na SMU EDGE conference, Singapore Management University, Singapura, Julho.

Clegg, S. R. (no prelo). Why is organization theory so ignorant? Journal of Management Inquiry.

Collins, J. C. & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Business.

Connolly, T., Colon, E. M. & Deutch, S. J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: a multiple constituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5, 211­‑218.

Cunha, M. P. (2005a). Serendipity: why some organizations are luckier than others. Working paper, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

Cunha, M. P. (2005b). Bricolage in organizations. Working paper, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

Cunha, M. P. (2006). Paradox. In S. R. Clegg & J. Bailey (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cunha, M. P., Clegg, S. R. & Kamoche, K. (no prelo). Surprises in management and organization. British Journal of Management.

Cunha, M. P., Cunha, J. V. & Kamoche, K. (1999). Organizational improvisation: what, when, how and why. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1, 299­‑341.

Cunha, M. P. & Rego, A. (2004). Estruturas mínimas e mudança organizacional. Tékhne, 1, 9­‑26.

Cunha, R. C. & Cunha, M. P. (2004). A bias for inaction: the impact of strategic procrastination on employees and organizational survival. CIMOC Inagural Symposium. City University of Hong Kong, June 2­‑4.

De Geus, A. (1997). The living company. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles. Harper & Row.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: the new language of change and pluralism. Academy of Management Review, 25, 703­‑705.

Eliot, T. S. (1983). Quatro quartetos. Lisboa: Ática.

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice­‑Hall.

Goodman, P. S., Pennings, J. M. & Associates (1977). New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey­‑Bass.

Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 50, 83­‑92.

Guillén, M. F. (1994). Models of management. Work, authority and organization in comparative perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 924­‑964.

Henri, J. (2004). Performance measurement and organizational effectiveness: bridging the gap. Managerial Finance, 30, 93­‑123.

Herman, R. D. & Renz, D. O. (1998). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: contrasts between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 9, 23­‑38.

Herman, R. D. & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 107­‑126.

Hurst, D. K. (1995). Crisis and renewal. Meeting the challenge of organizational change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, R. E. & Kaiser, R. B. (2003). Developing versatile leadership. MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer, 19­‑26.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2005). Leadership: the bright and the dark side of responsibility. EFMD Forum, Summer, 23­‑26.

Kirby, J. (2005). Toward a theory of high performance. Harvard Business Review, July­‑August, 30­‑39.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo.

Lao­‑Tse (2000). Tao Te King. Lisboa: Estampa.

Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Leonard­‑Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111­‑125.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational life. Organization Science, 2, 71­‑87.

Martin, R. (1993). Changing the mind of corporation. Harvard Business Review, November­‑December, 81­‑94.

Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340­‑363.

Meyer, M. W. & Gupta, V. (1994). The performance paradox. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 16, pp. 309­‑369). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Miles, R. H. (1980). Macro organizational behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Miller, D. (1990). The icarus paradox: how exceptional companies bring about their own fall. New York: Harper Collins.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ofori­‑Dankwa, J. & Julian, S. D. (2004). Conceptualizing social science paradoxes using the diversity and similarity curves model: illustrations from the work/play and theory novelty/continuity paradoxes. Human Relations, 57, 1449­‑1477.

Oldstone­‑Moore, J. (2005). Taoism. In M. D. Coogan (Ed.), Eastern religions: hinduism, buddhism, taoism, confucianism, shinto (pp. 212­‑313). New York: Oxford University Press.

Parhizgari, A. M. & Gilbert, G. R. (2004). Measures of organizational effectiveness: private and public sector performance. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, 32, 221–229.

Peters, T. & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: lessons from America’s best­‑run corporations. New York: Harper & Row [edição portuguesa: Na senda da excelência, Lisboa: Dom Quixote, 1987].

Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74, 61­‑78.

Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The blinders of dominant logic. Long Range Planning, 37, 171­‑179.

Quinn, R. E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363­‑377.

Rego, A. & Cunha, M. P. (2003). A essência da liderança. Lisboa: RH Editora.

Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice­‑Hall.

Starbuck, W. H. (1996). Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies. International Journal of Technology Management, 11, 725­‑737.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw­‑Hill.

Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567­‑582.

Van de Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510­‑540.

Venkatraman, N. & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measuring of business performance in strategy research: a comparison approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801­‑814.

Walton, E. J. & Dawson, S. (2001). Managers’ perceptions of criteria of organizational effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 173­‑199.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw­‑Hill.

Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. London: Blackwell.

Wing, R. L. (1986). O tao do poder. Mem Martins: Lyon Edições.

Yuchtman, E. & Seashore, S. E. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891­‑903.

 

¹  Faculdade de Economia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa. A correspondência relativa a este artigo deverá ser endereçada a Miguel Pina e Cunha, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Rua Marquês de Fronteira, 20, 1099­‑038 Lisboa – Portugal, E­‑mail: mpc@fe.unl.pt

Miguel Cunha agradece o apoio da Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Bolsa FCT POCTI/GES/48967/2002).

²  Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial, Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro.