On the Art of Managing Crisis in Organizations Driven by an Ideal Las organizaciones movidas por ideales comprenden instituciones religiosas, empresas sociales, organizaciones no gubernamentales y otras obras de encarnación inspiradas en un ideal superior y trascendente. Estas enfrentan el desafío de equilibrar su vocación fundacional con un modelo de gestión organizacional que les permita asegurar su sostenibilidad financiera y operativa. Esta realidad híbrida representa un reto de gobernanza para quienes dirigen este tipo de organizaciones, pues una combinación incorrecta de espíritu y management (en su sentido ordinario) puede alterar la supervivencia del proyecto. Un exceso de “espíritu” pone en riesgo la supervivencia financiera de la organización y, por el contrario, un exceso de management instrumental pone en riesgo la identidad misional que motivó a sus fundadores a crearla y llevarla adelante. El presente artículo utiliza el modelo de Voz, salida y lealtad, de A. Hirschman, y la teoría de masa crítica de T. Schelling y M. Granovetter, propias de los estudios organizacionales, para analizar esta particularidad frágil, pero poderosa, de las organizaciones movidas por ideales, centrada en las motivaciones intrínsecas de sus miembros. Y se postula que los miembros “intrínsecamente motivados” son los más sensibles a la pérdida de “calidad ideal”. Si su “protesta” (voz) es ignorada, son los primeros en optar por la “salida” (exit). Esta salida, aunque sea de pocos individuos, puede destruir la “masa crítica”, lo cual provoca un efecto de cadena que desmotiva a los miembros “imitadores” y precipita el mecanismo de deterioro acumulativo que corrompe la cultura cooperativa y la capacidad de cumplir con la misión ideal de la organización.

Main Article Content

Luis Fernando Ramírez Ramírez
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7971-0635
Luigino Bruni
Alessandra Smerilli

Abstract

Purpose-driven organizations (PDOs) comprise religious institutions, social enterprises, non-governmental organizations, and other works of embodiment inspired by a higher and transcendent ideal. They face the challenge of balancing their foundational vocation with an organizational management model that allows them to ensure their financial and operational sustainability. This hybrid reality represents a governance challenge for those who lead this type of organization, as an incorrect combination of 'spirit' and 'management' (in its ordinary sense) can alter the project's survival. An excess of 'spirit' puts the organization's financial survival at risk, and, conversely, an excess of 'instrumental management' puts the missional identity that motivated its founders to create and carry it forward at risk. This article uses A. Hirschman's 'Exit, Voice, and Loyalty' model and the critical mass theory of T. Schelling and M. Granovetter, both from organizational studies, to analyze this fragile yet powerful particularity of PDOs, centered on the intrinsic motivations of their members. It postulates that the 'intrinsically motivated' members are the most sensitive to the loss of 'ideal quality.' If their 'protest' (Voice) is ignored, they are the first to opt for 'exit.' This exit, even if of only a few individuals, can destroy the 'critical mass,' provoking a chain reaction that demotivates the 'imitator' members and precipitates a cumulative deterioration mechanism that corrupts the cooperative culture and the ability to fulfill the organization's ideal mission.

Keywords:
Purpose-driven organizations, Organizational studies, humanistic management, spiritual management

Article Details

References

Astley W.G., Van de Ven H. (1983). “Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, pp. 245-273.

Blume L., Durlauf S. (2000). “The Interaction-Based Approach to Socio-economic Behavior”, SSRI Working Paper n. 2001, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Brock W., Durlauf S. (2000). “Discrete Choice with Social Interactions,” SSRI Working Paper n. 2007, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Bruni L., Smerilli A. (2004). “I dilemmi dell’individualismo e il paradosso della reciprocità. Ipotesi e giochi”, in Bruni L., Crivelli L. (a cura di). Economia e comunione, Città Nuova, Roma.

Bruni L., Zamagni S. (2009). Dizionario di economia civile, Citt à Nuova, Roma.

Durlauf S. (2001). “A Framework for the Study of Individual Behavior and Social Interaction”, SSRI Working Paper n. 2016R, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Frey B. (1997). Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation, E. Elgar, Cheltenham.

Gladwell M. (2002). The Tipping Point, Litt le, Brown and Company, New York.

Granovetter M. (1978). “Threshold Models of Collective Behavior,” American Journal of Sociology, 83, pp. 1420-1443.

Hirschman A. (1982[1970]). Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Keley M. (1978). “A Social-Justice Approach to Organizational Evaluation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, pp. 272-292.

Le Grand, J. (2003). Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy. Of Knights & Knaves, Pawns & Queens, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mitroff I.I., Denton E.A. (1999). “A Study of Spirituality in the Workplace”, Sloan Management Review, 40(4), pp. 83-92.

Schelling T. (1978). Micromotives and Macrobehavior, Norton, W.W. & Company, Inc. Williamson O. (1995), Organization Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Most read articles by the same author(s)