Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kooperationen unter Konsensfiktion durch Mehrdeutigkeit

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Kooperation in der digitalen Arbeitswelt

Part of the book series: uniscope. Publikationen der SGO Stiftung ((UNISCOPE))

  • 9168 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Kooperation wird üblicherweise mit gemeinsamen Zielen in Verbindung gebracht. Problematisch dabei ist, dass in Organisationen verschiedene Akteure (Stakeholder) regelmäßig unterschiedliche Ziele verfolgen. Wie kann unter diesen Umständen Kooperation angestoßen werden, ohne sie formal zu erzwingen oder auf bereits aufgebautes Vertrauen zurückgreifen zu können? Anstatt unterschiedliche Ziele zu integrieren, bietet Konsensfiktion eine vielversprechende Antwort darauf, wie Kooperation ohne Zielekonsens gedacht werden kann. Dieser Beitrag geht darauf ein, wie durch Mehrdeutigkeit Konsensfiktion hergestellt werden kann. Dazu werden Erkenntnisse der Management- und Organisationsforschung herangezogen und operative Illustrationen zu Mitteln und Anwendungen herausgearbeitet. Damit sollen Managern und Beratern, zum Beispiel im Change Management, zusätzliche Zugänge zur Gestaltung von Kooperation aufgezeigt werden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Abdallah, C., & Langley, A. (2014). The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning: The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 235–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aragones, E., & Neeman, Z. (2000). Strategic ambiguity in electoral competition. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12, 183–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benders, J., & Van Veen, K. (2001). What’s in a fashion? Interpretative viability and management fashions. Organization, 8, 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brattström, A., & Faems, D. (2020). Inter-organizational relationships as political battlefields: How fragmentation within organizations shapes relational dynamics between organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 63(5), im Druck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castañer, X., & Oliveira, N. (2020). Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: Establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. Journal of Management, 46(6), 965-1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chreim, S. (2005). The continuity-change duality in narrative texts of organizational identity*. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 567–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cram, W. A., & Newell, S. (2016). Mindful revolution or mindless trend? Examining agile development as a management fashion. European Journal of Information Systems, 25, 154–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denis, J.-L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2011). Escalating indecision: Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organization Science, 22, 225–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnellon, A., Gray, B., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Communication, meaning, and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endreß, M. (2012). Vertrauen und Misstrauen – Soziologische Überlegungen. In C. Schilcher, M. Will-Zocholl, & M. Ziegler (Hrsg.), Vertrauen und Kooperation in der Arbeitswelt (S. 81–102). Springer VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Nag, R., & Corley, K. G. (2012). Visionary ambiguity and strategic change: The virtue of vagueness in launching major organizational change. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21, 364–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. (2006). „It was such a handy term“: Management fashions and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1227–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., Levine, J., & Morgan, W. (1998). Ambiguity, distorted messages, and nested environmental effects on political communication. The Journal of Politics, 60, 996–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P., Sillince, J. A. A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human Relations, 63, 219–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, M. (2000). Too much or too little ambiguity: The language of total quality management. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kernbach, S., Eppler, M. J., & Bresciani, S. (2015). The use of visualization in the communication of business strategies: An experimental evaluation. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 164–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen, K. U., & Mäkinen, S. (2009). Role of boundary objects in negotiations of project contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühl, S. (2015). Sisyphos im Management: die vergebliche Suche nach der optimalen Organisationsstruktur (2. Aufl.). Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: An Integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34, 87–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1999). Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation (5. Aufl.). Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2000). Organisation und Entscheidung (3. Aufl.). VS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2014). Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität (5. Aufl.). UVK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations (2. Aufl.). Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 145–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8, 193–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neue Narrative. (2021). Das Purpose-Turnier: Findet den Purpose von eurem Team! https://www.neuenarrative.de/magazin/das-purpose-turnier-ein-tool-um-den-purpose-im-team-zu-finden/. Zugegriffen: 27. Febr. 2021.

  • Page, B. I. (1976). The theory of political ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 70, 742–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. (2011). Chickens and pigs. Scrum.org. https://www.scrum.org/resources/chickens-and-pigs. Zugegriffen: 22. Dez. 2020.

  • Putnam, L. L., & Sorenson, R. L. (1982). Equivocal messages in organizations. Human Communication Research, 8, 114–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 19, 90–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sailer, P. (2020). Dynamische Ambidextrie durch interdependente Routinen: Einfluss und Auswirkung von Scrum auf Projektebene. Springer Gabler.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salvato, C., Reuer, J. J., & Battigalli, P. (2017). Cooperation across disciplines: A multilevel perspective on cooperative behavior in governing interfirm relations. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 960–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2020). Sensemaking reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding through phenomenology. Organization Theory, 1(1), 1-34 https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719879937.

  • Schilcher, C., Will-Zocholl, M., & Ziegler, M. (2012). Vertrauen und Kooperation in der Arbeitswelt. Springer VS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. http://agilemanifesto.org/. Zugegriffen: 1. Apr. 2020.

  • Sillince, J., Jarzabkowski, P., & Shaw, D. (2012). Shaping strategic action through the rhetorical construction and exploitation of ambiguity. Organization Science, 23, 630–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2010). We’re changing – Or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 477–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2009). Strategy tools as boundary objects. Strategic Organization, 7, 223–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & N. M. Huhns (Hrsg.), Distributed Artificial Intelligence (S. 37–54). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strike, V. M., & Rerup, C. (2016). Mediated sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 880–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suomalainen, T., Kuusela, R., & Tihinen, M. (2015). Continuous planning: An important aspect of agile and lean development. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 8, 132–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutter, M., & Kieser, A. (2015). How consultants and their clients collaborate in spite of massive communication barriers. International Journal of Business Communication, 56, 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415613340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 305–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of Management, 16, 571–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995a). Der Prozess des Organisierens (6. Aufl.). Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995b). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hochschule Fresenius München, München, Deutschland

    Patrick Sailer

Authors
  1. Patrick Sailer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Sailer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hochschule für Soziale Arbeit, Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Muttenz, Basel Land, Schweiz

    Olaf Geramanis

  2. Hochschule für Soziale Arbeit, Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Muttenz, Basel Land, Schweiz

    Stefan Hutmacher

  3. Hochschule für Soziale Arbeit, Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Muttenz, Basel Land, Schweiz

    Lukas Walser

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert durch Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sailer, P. (2021). Kooperationen unter Konsensfiktion durch Mehrdeutigkeit. In: Geramanis, O., Hutmacher, S., Walser, L. (eds) Kooperation in der digitalen Arbeitswelt . uniscope. Publikationen der SGO Stiftung. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34497-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34497-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-34496-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-34497-9

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation