Mintzberg: Feedback to reports

1. Mintzberg: Feedback to reports Pål Sørgaard, Telenor R&D and IfI INF 5250 October 17, 2005

2. Describing with theory • This is hard • Generally well done • Explain the theory you use, but briefly, preferably integrated with your description • Avoid long overviews of Mintzberg • Be open to more than one interpretation • A good discussion is more important than a firm conclusion • Several cases are hard to classify • Some reports have very good discussions Pål Sørgaard, R&D

3. Method • Think about the method you use • You only see a minor part of the organisation • You mainly meet “official” representatives • You seldom see the “real” work • Avoid taking Mintzberg’s view for granted • Risk of circular arguments • You select an approach given extreme constraints Pål Sørgaard, R&D

4. Handling interviews • Interviewees are normally kept anonymous • Interviews are normally not a part of the report • but fine to share with your advisor • You can quotes from interviews to illustrate • Refer to interviews if you need to, otherwise talk about them • Be critical, the interviewee is only one person among many Pål Sørgaard, R&D

5. Handling sources • Make sure that what you write is what you think • quote views by interviewees or from official brochures • Be careful with insiders (yourself, your family, others that you cannot have a critical distance to) • Try to find alternative sources • Newspapers and the political agenda are good to know • Be critical Pål Sørgaard, R&D

6. Making reports • Explain to your reader what you do • Use introductions and meta text • Present your findings • Discuss your findings • Do not hide your doubts • Conclude • Don’t start with the conclusion • When talking about an organisation, say “it” not “they” Pål Sørgaard, R&D

7. Understanding Mintzberg • Stability and complexity • Delimitation • Do we see an organisation or a part of one? • Be prepared for alternative interpretations • And read chapter 13 • Technostructure different from IT (very!!!) • Technical system also different from IT • The middle line consists of all management levels, not just level 2 • May also include project leaders Pål Sørgaard, R&D

8. Advanced bureaucracies • Professional independence • In a hospital, the CEO cannot instruct an MD in medical matters, similarly at a university • In a ministry, in a library, and in a software company that is possible (but wise?) • There are quite strong examples of technostructure in these examples • And also strong external control • Is pigeonholing a must for a professional bureaucracy? • Bureaucracies with highly skilled workers more common than in 1983 • Are these moving towards adhocracy? Pål Sørgaard, R&D

9. Technicalities • Pagination • Getting references right • Table of contents • Title page with complete information • Proofreading • Husk regler for orddeling! • Ikke som på engelsk!!!!!!!!!! • Se http://folk.uio.no/tfredvik/amo/ Pål Sørgaard, R&D

10. General impression • Very good work by most groups • 21 reports, 15 accepted • 55 students in total (are you that many?) • Reports delivered on time • Successful given constraints in time and knowledge • Good way to learn? Pål Sørgaard, R&D

11. To those who “failed” • You get one new chance • In the written feedback you get information about why • Improve or rewrite your report • New deadline: October 31, noon 1200 • Two weeks from now • Send to Miria • Final evaluation November 7 Pål Sørgaard, R&D