To this day, organizations in developed countries are mostly characterized by production organization theories, aiming at the optimization of the value chain rather than its modification.
Talk of innovation in organizations frequently turns out to be no more than an improvement of the value chain. The spirit of Taylorism is inherent in the most common management theories.
G. Mauch (*)
RETENCON AG, Freystr. 4, 80802 Munchen, Germany
e-mail: gerrit.mauch@retencon.de
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 153
K. Jacob et al. (eds.), Liquid Legal, Management for Professionals,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45868-7_11
All economic inefficiencies can be solved brilliantly by separating thinking (reserved for the management) and action, as well as by separating functionalities in production and services. The simplification of complicated structures seems to be the logical consequence of our perception of cause effect. Occurring side effects of the common management theories such as conflicts within departments, different rationalities within organizations, or relationships between superiors and employees are perceived as deficiencies of the acting person rather than a deficiency of the principle of Taylorism. The globalized, dynamic, networked progress breaks the value chain. For example, a search engine developer can suddenly become a car manufacturer, turn car manufacturers into suppliers, or even transform a car manufacturer into a software developer. Many organizations continue to look at last century's methods to figure out how to handle innovation in a positive way. Rituals and dogma of Taylorism and Fordism1 in corporate governance satisfy managers' longing to resolve every problem by means of reduction. In an environment of changed conditions for decision making, where coalitions of interest become more complex and motivation changes all the time, such a way of thinking is the real culprit for blocking innovation.
1.1