Professor Peter Walgenbach: more renowned Professor of Organisational Theory at the University of Jena. Since autumn 2008, he has held the Chair of Business Administration with a focus on organisation, leadership and personnel management at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena. He began his academic career as a research assistant at the University of Mannheim under the guidance of Alfred Kieser. Both have been bringing the Standardwerk „Organisation“ out.

Well through time.

The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting.

Chapter

Summary

This episode of the podcast "Gut durch die Zeit" is all about the complex interrelationships in organisations and the various theories that shed light on them. My guest is Professor Peter Walgenbach, a renowned professor of organisational theory at the University of Jena. Together we will explore how organisations can be viewed from different scientific perspectives and what challenges arise in the process.

We quickly come to the essential question of what makes a good organisational theory. Theories should serve to promote understanding of social and cultural phenomena. They offer explanations for observable reality and enable us to gain critical insights. Professor Weigenbach emphasises that no single theoretical model is perfect; every theory has its shortcomings and these shortcomings offer opportunities for practice. It is important that practitioners consider a variety of theories in their analyses in order to gain a more comprehensive picture.

Change within organisations is also a central topic of our conversation. The consulting scene is particularly active in its observation that continuous change has become the norm. This leads us to consider whether this change is often portrayed as greater or more relevant than it actually is in order to generate a need for consultancy. Nevertheless, Professor Walgenbach is convinced that even these consulting impulses, which may be regarded as "brainless", can trigger valuable irritations that sharpen the focus on existing problems.

We also discuss the tension between the goals of an organisation and the individual goals of its members. The complexity of organisations is reflected in the fact that individual creativity is not always a welcome quality. Often the organisation only wants to promote creativity that contributes to the achievement of its own goals. In this context, we outline the challenges for managers who have to operate in a field of tension between the organisation and its employees.

The final section of our discussion is dedicated to the role of external consultants and mediators in conflict management. Here, Professor Walgenbach emphasises that it is essential to understand the organisational context in which conflicts take place. Conflicts are often not solely due to personal differences, but result from the interplay of interests within the organisation. This insight is crucial for counsellors to be able to provide effective support.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that our discussion has provided many valuable insights into the understanding and observation of organisations. Organisations are complex entities that are shaped by the interactions of their members. Theories provide tools to better penetrate and understand this structure.

Contents

[0:00] That is the misfortune of the individuals in the organisation, that the organisation is actually only their action and everything else is irrelevant. Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit, the podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. A podcast from INKOVEMA. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. Today it's all about organisational theories. And if I emphasise that, then I can already say that my guest is more about theories and observing organisations from a distance than about working with and experiencing organisations as a member or as a consultant directly in practical life. My guest today is a university lecturer, a professor of organisational theory at the University of Jena.

[0:53] Came to Jena in 2008 from the University of Mannheim. There, if I've researched it correctly, as a research assistant to Alfred Kieser. And anyone who works in this field will be familiar with the standard work that my guest took over today. We know Alfred Kieser and Professor Peter Walgenbach. Welcome, Peter Walgenbach. Hello, Mr Walgenbach, you are a business economist and, if I am correct, you are a psychologist. You have psychology as a supplementary competence for observing organisations, so to speak.

[1:33] Studied, academically steeped and have been using it ever since. I would be a little more cautious. I wouldn't want to draw it that big. Well, I studied a bit of psychology. I studied it at the university in Düsseldorf at the beginning, but I dropped out there. I always found the subject as such somewhat exciting and continued it in Mannheim in the context of organisational psychology, so to speak. But then I have to say that I kept moving away from psychology and towards sociology. I'm a business graduate, as you said, but I somehow wander between the boundaries, between the different disciplines. That's important for me to be able to understand organisations as comprehensively as possible.

[2:14] Also, in my opinion, makes up your standard work, which I think every student of organisation, in whatever basic discipline, knows,

[2:22] that this is a pervasive collection of the most diverse approaches to organisations. Before we perhaps take a closer look at some of them and get an overview, what makes a good theory if you want to observe something that you can't touch, that you can't embrace, that it's not a practical phenomenon? So I first have to make a qualification. Everything I'm about to say applies to theories in the social sciences or cultural studies, if you want to take a broad view. And when it comes to theories in general, when it comes to the natural sciences, I'd better keep my mouth shut because I have no idea. But what are theories actually for? Theories should first of all create understanding. They should make us understand what is out there, what we are confronted with, give us an insight. That is very important.

[3:14] And I think that is also a task that you have as a university lecturer, that something is made understandable to the students, which they will then be confronted with at some point in their professional lives. But these theories should do even more. They should explain reality, social reality. There is something inherent in the explanation, namely the possibility to criticise. Namely, what I see. And from this criticism you can derive recommendations for action, you can make suggestions as to how reality can perhaps be transformed into a more desirable state. That is, so to speak, what theories are generally supposed to do.

[3:54] Now we have a problem. I have already said that I deal with many theories from different disciplines and I can now say, based on my history, my long involvement with theories and organisations, that all these theories that I have dealt with are all deficient. None of them can explain everything comprehensively and because this is the case, not a single theory or not a single theory provides a basis for creating a desirable future or desirable conditions with certainty. At best, you can always see partial aspects. And now you can ask, is that a problem? Is it a problem that these theories are deficient? No, I don't think it's a problem at all, on the contrary, it's an opportunity on various levels, and ultimately against the background that we are all rational to a limited extent, even the scientists at the universities are also rational to a limited extent, even they can't see everything, it is perhaps even very good that the theories are deficient, that theory is always only provisional and ultimately only remains an attempt at explanation.

[5:06] This means that it's also worthwhile for users of theories, i.e. practitioners, if they do deal with theories, not to focus on one, but to get a broad view without having to worry that if I haven't fully grasped one theory, I can only see insufficiently. I have to come to terms with that anyway. That's right. I think that's one advantage that practitioners have over scientists. They can operate with different theories in one context. As a scientist, you can't do that, especially when you're writing scientific essays or books, because you have to approach a phenomenon consistently from one perspective, from a theoretical perspective, and try to explain it as comprehensively as possible. Yes, theories are ultimately based on different sets of assumptions. There are theories that say individuals are rational, others say it is boundedly rational, others say the influences come from there, others say it comes from there.

[6:11] In reality, everything is there. And that is the option, the great opportunity that practitioners have in comparison to academia, to bring all these different perspectives into a context in order to ultimately perhaps gain a better or more comprehensive insight into the

[6:28] organisation, for example, or in other events. As a scientist, you know that, but you're not allowed to write it like that because you're forced to stay within a discipline and within a certain theory. That would be a de facto explanation, at least that's what I hear, as to why it is worthwhile, or at least because it is done, to let non-organisational members deal with the organisation. So bringing in external consultants and asking what you see with your view, with your theories or even different mixtures of theories. Yes, it makes sense to do that. Whenever you think you perceive a problem in the organisation that you might be able to address better with a broader perspective, then it makes sense. If an organisation - and this is also important again - can actually afford it, because good advice is expensive. I've heard that.

[7:33] You probably also look at organisations, precisely with this phenomenon of what happens in the environment, i.e. how much or how intensively consultants are brought in and also observe the consulting scene in the context of organisations, so to speak. Now, at least in my experience as a practitioner and observer of the consulting scene, it is common practice to proclaim permanent change and has been for decades. So it is constantly changing and is that something that you also observe, that it is as fundamental as it is always propagated in various connotations, whether it is digitalisation or the wishes of the generation, which are all constantly changing? How do you look at it? Well, I think everything is always changing. That's quite normal. It's very complex. Different actors do something and every action triggers something and causes a change or irritation elsewhere. There is always change. And sometimes it comes from fields that we didn't even expect to exist. Suddenly there is an impulse to which an organisation or individuals in the organisation have to react. The second question is a more exciting one. Is the change always so great or is what is happening so relevant that we have to react immediately? And perhaps the following needs to be said. So the consultant scene, consultant scene.

[8:58] They are providers. They operate on a market, they offer consulting services so that consulting services are bought by companies, by organisations in general. Then the change has to be made big so that the impression is created, so to speak, that I need advice on this phenomenon in order to be able to assess it better. Or in other words, especially in the context of specific management consultancies - I won't mention the names now - that also generate management concepts that claim to make the organisation more efficient, more effective and so on and so forth. They have to make their concepts loud. They have to shout it into the market so that someone will buy it. This means that you don't just react to problems, so to speak, with a plaster or a small correction, but that you also claim to be fundamentally better at it than those involved who are currently at the helm or in the functional roles. That's right, you just want to sell a product or a service that practically the consulting scene lives from - that's completely legitimate, we're in a market economy. From the organisation's point of view, you have to look at what it really is, do I need it, do I actually need it, do I even have the problem that is somehow addressed there. That was my impression and also that of my academic teacher, Alfred Kieser, very often that concepts are developed there that are not actually needed, that have to be brought to the man.

[10:26] And now you can say, is that nonsense, is that rubbish? Yes, not necessarily, not necessarily. Because solutions to problems that don't exist still irritate the organisation. And irritation is good, because sometimes it induces something, namely you look at things differently. And that alone may lead to improvements being made in certain areas or other problems being identified in the first place that you didn't even know you had. Can't you do anything wrong as a consultant? No, not really. Because as I just said, I assume that we are all rational to a limited extent

[11:07] you can also make something out of this situation. In other words, if I solve a problem that I didn't even know I had, that's also a good thing.

[11:19] Yes, that's also a nice point. I want to pick up on this tension between people and organisation, so to speak, that historically, at least in recent history, orderly modernity, as Andreas Reckwitz has also drawn it, and how we still imagine industrial companies or large enterprises today. You're a small cog in the wheel and you always have to make sure you don't get lost. So there's a field of tension in that the organisation pursues completely different interests than the individual and the individual people organise themselves and say, "Man, the organisation is there for us and not for the people and unions and interest groups form and try to exert influence. This area of tension, which we know from the modern age, has changed fundamentally in today's organisations, let's say in our area of industrialised countries and regions that are on the way to digitalisation, that people are trying to create a parallel of interests, keyword New Work. Let me put it very succinctly. I would say painting, not carpentry, because I would say it worked in the end, but you somehow paint a picture of something harmonious where it works. But in fact there is always a conflict between the organisation and the individual.

[12:40] The organisation as an abstract entity, as a social construction, has declared goals and it pursues them. We are of course partly contradictory, these goals, conflicting. And the organisation has to deal with this. And the individual often has different goals than the organisation.

[13:02] But I wouldn't always want to assume that there is a complete conflict of interest; very often it overlaps. And the conflict of interest is already gone when it comes to earning an income. The individual, no matter what else they want, is a member of an organisation, especially a company, because they want to earn an income. Otherwise they wouldn't be members, because membership of organisations.

[13:27] It's a strong abstraction, but a necessary one, it's a voluntary story. I sign a work contract and in doing so I make my capacities available to the organisation. It is not specified in detail which actions I have to perform. This is kept abstract and it is also important from the organisation's point of view that it is specified as little or as little as possible in order to maintain flexibility with regard to the use of the purchased or contractually agreed resources. Very important, yes. Yes, that's not now to give a little review on Apple Podcast or on the podcast catcher of your choice. Thank you very much.

[14:12] There seems to me to be a tangible change, so to speak, at least in the world of work, i.e. what members of the organisation have to do. In an industrial company on the assembly line, that was an action and please don't think, just do it. And that's what the journeymen had already learnt in the workshops and were supposed to do. So this idea of first watching, then imitating and if you're lucky, you can later become a journeyman or instruct other people on the machine. Today it's more like this, for the most part at least the thesis now, please sign the employment contract and then develop your thoughts, develop your personality. And we want to have this creativity, so that the organisation can no longer say exactly what it wants, but says, just achieve the goal. So if that's true, what impact does that have on the organisation of the organisation?

[15:07] A relatively large one. So if we go back to industrial operations, assembly lines and so on, of course, the organisation can define exactly what action it wants. One movement, insert a part, press the button and then everything is done. That's all it wants. And if organisations are dependent on their employees' ability to think for themselves due to an environment that has become more dynamic, they can no longer prescribe this in detail. Nevertheless, it does not want all actions and it does not want all creativity from employees, but it wants those who contribute to achieving the organisational goal. If you take an example, what creativity does it not want? The creative ideas to remodel the entire office. We thought about that very carefully, like with an interior designer. And then the employee comes along and says, but I want a picture in this size and this size. That's not possible. An abstract example. Not everything that an individual wants is compatible with the organisation's goals. And the moment it is no longer compatible with what the employee's creative mind has come up with, then the organisation doesn't want it.

[16:14] And that, I think, is the area of tension in which many organisations and companies find themselves today, that we are increasingly communicating through certain ideas of what an individual actually is, what they should be, an autonomous actor and so on.

[16:29] The idea that everyone can actually realise themselves. But organisations are not about self-fulfilment, they're about realising the goals of the organisation. And that is this conflict. Yes, that is a clarification. It's not about self-realisation. At least that's not what the organisation is about. Individuals are given this as a way of life. Realise yourself. But this formulation, and I found this new, I think it really fits, not everyone wants creativity. It's a very colourful word and is promoted everywhere today and should be embraced without restriction, so to speak. But in fact, not all creativity is desired and it is also made clear that it is not desired. Exactly, that's right. It's about creativity within fluid boundaries. These shift again and again when an organisation is in a phase where it simply needs new ideas, then the employees should be more creative. Once the idea has been found, the problem has been solved, then the creativity is reduced again and then it becomes more of a cogwheel, I wouldn't call it that, but simply an executive organ within the company, within the organisation.

[17:42] Creativity is only required sometimes. Yes, so here I can also think of this difficulty that managers are increasingly describing, that they don't know exactly where they can put a stop, where they can set guard rails again, if the employee or also in the school, if the pupil feels uncomfortable, so to speak, and says, but he wants this and then this is part of personality development, that there are simply no clear boundaries and the manager or the leader cannot retreat to something,

[18:12] except, and then the question is about your own decision. Yes, the manager has more options. That's the great thing about organisations. The manager can simply refer back to the hierarchy. The manager is superior in this organisational structure.

[18:30] And that's something that gives it a certain power. You can say, that's enough. A colleague of mine used to say in this context that anyone who invokes hierarchy has already lost themselves. In other words, if you appeal to authority, you've already lost yourself. And that means in the interpersonal concept. But from an organisational point of view, as I understand it, that doesn't matter at all. No, that's the problem with managers. Managers are the organisation's stopgaps. They have to somehow deal with the fact that the organisation is the organisation and has its goals and ultimately the employees have their goals and they have to operate within them. And that's incredibly difficult because we assume, as the law says, that all people are equal. And organisation cancels that out. It creates a superiority and subordination between people.

[19:19] Who are in positions where you can give instructions and other people who are in positions where you receive instructions. And this instruction can sometimes simply be, that's fine, now let's get back to the day-to-day business, we have enough ideas. And from a legal perspective, I would like to add that, of course, the organisation can do this because the employees have signed up to the fact that they are allowed to do this within the framework of their own responsibility. They are allowed to build in the hierarchy, employees allow their superiors to do so, so to speak. And back to the point you just made. Yes, it's incredibly difficult for managers to perform this balancing act. Between simply responding to the individual, not using my formally superior position and the power it confers, and trying to convey to employees what the organisation wants. That's the job of managers and now I'm making an economic argument, they are paid a little better than others for that. For me, that's a bridge and a fork in the road.

[20:25] Coming back to the topic of conflict management. I am, so to speak, active in the field of conflict management in and with organisations and am called in when managers and executives find themselves in a situation that they want to, have to, should delegate, sometimes even recommended by even more senior executives. And then an external conflict counsellor or mediator is called in, who can also have the impression of closing the gap, helping to close it and supporting the manager. How do you view the fact that this type of conflict management is increasing, I would say moderately increasing, and that mediation is also supported by the state, i.e. that it is something where non-organisational members are called in as mediators by the organisation to deal with conflicts with employees? This is also the context in which we got to know each other. So I think that's an understandable development.

[21:29] It has a lot to do with the fact that the value systems in our society have changed. In the past, it was absolutely clear that anyone who accepted a position anywhere had to follow instructions from someone. We have created a problem because of the education system and the values that we - I think this is positive, don't get me wrong - the values that we convey there, that all people are equal and that everyone should develop and so on. The manager in this situation, that under certain circumstances in certain situations, the employees have not yet really understood that they are in an organisation. There are various options. The supervisor, the manager, can be tough on the rights he or she has been given.

[22:13] But if he does that, then he's doing what we've just said, he's referring to formal power. I would have lost, I would have lost influence, I would have lost leadership. That's not possible. So that means he has to solve this problem somehow differently if there is this conflict between employee and manager. And even if the - now the view is ultimately that of the manager - the employee doesn't want to realise that it's not about him as a manager and what he wants as a manager, but about what the organisation wants.

[22:46] Then it's sometimes helpful to involve an external person who tries to convey exactly that. There is something other than the person, it's not the person doing something per se, but we are in an organisational context. And I think it's very, very helpful to have recourse to mediation in such cases because, as I understood it at the time when we were working together, this mediator makes precisely this clear. In other words, it brings in a different perspective that is now detached from the two people who are in conflict. So I can also gain a lot from the connotation, because the organisation initiates this mediation. It makes it available, it offers it to the employees and so there is also a focus on the organisational perspective. As a rule, I also experience this with employees, and it's absolutely clear. And I'd like to categorise this again, so I wanted to ask you how you assess this from the outside, so to speak, as an academic.

[23:58] The negotiation process, which is concluded at a certain level with the employment contract, is then taken up again more strongly in everyday working life. And it can be scrutinised more than perhaps, let's say, 50 years ago, when it was said, please don't question this, this is now an instruction, just do it. And today, a greater demand for further negotiation is also expected

[24:24] that this can be done. In other words, that employees claim that I can negotiate with you further. So, it's not like the German supermarket, where the price is displayed and nobody negotiates at the checkout, even though they could. That's exactly what it is in the end. Today, we have the option, i.e. at the beginning, the employment contract is always open, i.e. as open as possible, at least for managers or employees in positions of responsibility. This cannot be specified and that is what ultimately makes the organisation.

[24:53] That's what economists say at this point when they differentiate between market and hierarchy. For the market, it's absolutely clear, that's the price, I buy or I don't buy. I offer or I don't offer. And in organisations, contracts are open. It is not specified in detail what the burden is. Even for the organisation. So the organisation doesn't say, now he's signed, I can do what I want with him. Instead, it assumes that he can continue to negotiate and that this is what he wants. But within this framework, please. Yes, of course, as long as the goals of the organisation or the department are not jeopardised. It is important, and ultimately this is also an option for employees in organisations, that they can expand their position based on the specific services they can provide. In other words, an employee who really does bring certain competences to certain tasks has much more leeway in negotiating the freedom or lack of freedom they have. If I just assign standard tasks, there's nothing to negotiate. If you don't do it, someone else will. Closing time.

[26:07] At the moment, when I'm dependent on the specific skills of individual employees as an organisation - a really stupid situation from an organisational perspective - I have to give employees freedom. However, this freedom has its limits and they have their limits where the goals of the organisation are at risk. This also confirms to me once again that conflict management is a management task, but it is not only legitimate, it seems to me increasingly so, but also a real necessity that you don't have to deal with it alone as a manager. You have to organise it and take responsibility for it, but this is also a task that can be delegated. In other words, you bring in an external moderator or, if things have boiled over, a mediator or, or, or.

[26:55] But it would be too much to ask of conflict management if you were to call it a management task and emphasise that you have to do it alone and not just be responsible for it, because that's hardly possible when you're working with creative people. Exactly, because you always have to emphasise that there is something above the manager that the manager has to follow. Yes, I agree with that. Mr Weingemann, to conclude, which should be slowly phased in here, what is important for external consultants or mediators when they work with organisations, from your point of view, that we have perhaps not yet addressed? That is a difficult question. We got to know each other in a certain context. And as far as that is concerned, I only know this context and no other. I actually believe that it is very important that the consultants also know that there is an organisation in addition to the individuals, i.e. when it comes to this type of consulting. And it is important to know what an organisation is, how it functions, what challenges this imaginary entity is confronted with, because I believe that this also makes it clear that it is not always a conflict between individuals.

[28:07] It's a conflict between people in a certain environment. The people have to deal with it, the conflicts are not really theirs. Exactly, because this conflict that was at stake at the time was not a personal conflict for me, it was a conflict between two people who had different interests within a certain context. Whether the interests were legitimate or not is not for me to judge. But I can only ever say that it is helpful to have someone who understands organisation, i.e. how it is structured and that it is not about the individual.

[28:45] Organisations are only interested in actions and not in individuals. That's the misfortune of the individuals in the organisation, that the organisation actually only wants their actions and everything else is irrelevant. I think that's a great conclusion. Mr Walgenbach, thank you for this very interesting interview. Thank you, Mr Weigel. I've enjoyed it. Have a good time. Have a good start to the new semester. Thank you, Mr Walgenbach. Bye. Thank you so much for joining us again. Here in the podcast Gut durch die Zeit, the podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. If you liked the episode and the content in general, please subscribe to this podcast and leave feedback or a star rating on Apple Podcast or Google Business. This will also help people who are not yet familiar with the podcast to find it and then listen to it. See you next time. Get through this time well. I am Sascha Weigel, your host from INKOVEMA, the Institute for Conflict and Negotiation Management in Leipzig and partner for professional mediation and coaching training.