Brunsson, Nils (2003) Organized Hypocrisy i Czarniawska &Sevon (eds) The Northern Lights – Organization theory in Scandinavia, pp 201-222,Trelleborg : Liber. AB20 sider
Definitions:
Traditional decision theory: a decision is indicating a corresponding action which will occur in the future
Talk → ↑ action
Hypocrisy: to act opposite of what is said/decided
Theory of hypocrisy: talk/decisions compensate for actions
Thus the opposite of the traditional decision theory
Talk/decision → ↓ action
Action → ↓ talk/decision
(talk/decision decrease the likelihood of a corresponding action. And action decrease the likelihood of corresponding talk/decision)
Hypocrisy:
Hypocrisy creates opportunities – it facilitates action in a conflict situation
It offers a high degree of freedom
Hypocrisy is tied to an actor – only actors can be hypocritical
Actors: individuals or organizations
Hypocrisy is kind of an inconsistency within the actor
This is abnormal = problem
Hypocrisy is a response to a world in which values, ideas, or people are in conflict
Hypocrisy is normal within organizations because it is impossible to meet everybody’s demands and to make everybody happy.
You can either make a few very happy and a lot very unhappy, or you can use hypocrisy and make most happy
With hypocrisy no one’s needs are fully meet, but no one is left totally unsatisfied
Too much hypocrisy is morally wrong, but too little is fanaticism
Hypocrisy makes it possible to keep a high morale
Hypocrisy can be a way to handle conflicts
Different kinds of conflict occurs due to:
Interpersonal relations: Difference among people
Time aspects: Different demands over time
Intrapersonal aspects: Different roles
The theory of hypocrisy only works on people who believe in the traditional decision theory (talk → action)
Thus, it only works when people find talk/decisions important
The theory of hypocrisy only works when people do not believe in it!!
Hypocrisy makes it easier to say controversial things and to make controversial decisions.
Hypocrisy makes it easier to maintain the legitimacy of organizations, even when they are subjected to conflicting demands
Talk and decision generally reach a greater audience than the actions do. Many people might therefore view talk/decisions as equivalent to actions
Organisational hypocrisy can both be intentional and unintentional
Unintentional: it is just an answer to a conflict
A long timeframe for the hypocritically promised action is useful because conflicts and demands usually change over time
A timeframe creates tolerance for the discrepancies among talk, decision and action
Many will think that the situation has changed too much for the old decision to become action when the timeframe is met. Then the whole situation must be re-evaluated in its current context
Situations can also lose their importance by being forgotten
Diversity between ideology and practice:
Talk/decision are often less expensive than action
Some things can be done but not said (eg. Ethics)
Meta-hypocrisy:
The posture that a hypocritical organization is not a hypocrite
One continues to be a hypocrite but one claims that one is not
Hypocrisy only works for materialists who do not believe in hypocrisy
It is therefore important to convince the materialist that the organization is one actor and that there is no hypocrisy
Based on the demand that one should not be a hypocrite
The norm of consistency: the norm that actors should not be hypocrites
There is a risk of the hypocrisy to be discovered and viewed as a sin and get sanctioned
Whether we are dealing with one actor or many over time can influence our tolerance of hypocrisy
We tend to think that a new actor has been created
This creates a tolerance for hypocrisy because it is viewed as inconsistency between 2 actors rather than inconsistency within one actor (= hypocrisy)
Examples:
Swedish government banded cage hens in 1987 as a 80th birthday present to the animals rights activist: Astrid Lindgren. The hens were still in small cages when she died at the age of 95!