Ar Delaktighet Möjlig I En Byråkrati?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A• • r delaktighet möjlig i en byråkrati? En fallstudie inom Försvarsmakten av det arbete som föregick försvarsbeslut -96 Erna Danielsson *1.V » Umeå Universitet 901 87 Umeå www.umu.se ÄR DELAKTIGHET MÖJLIG I EN BYRÅKRATI? En fallstudie inom Försvarsmakten av det arbete som föregick försvarsbeslut -96 AKADEMISK AVHANDLING som med tillstånd av rektor vid Umeå universitet för avläggande av filosofie doktorsexamen kommer att försvaras i Hörsal E, Humanisthuset, fredagen den 1 ma rs 2002 kl 13.15 av Erna Danielsson *c/> va Umeå universitet Umeå 2002 Danielsson, Erna. Àr delaktighet möjlig i en byråkrati? En fallstudie inom Försvars makten av det arbete som föregick försvarsbeslut -96 [Is participation possible in a bureaucracy? A case study within the Swedish Armed Forces focusing on the work that preceded the 1996 Resolution on Defence]. Swedish text with a summary in English. Doctoral Dissertation in Sociology at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Umeå University, 2002. ISBN 91-7305-177-2 ISSN 1104-2508 ABSTRACT This thesis is about the conflict between participation and bureaucracy. This co nflict is illustrated by a case study within the Swedish Armed Forces under the activity that preceded the 1996 Resolution on Defence. More closely it focuses on the decision-making process that led to the Swedish Armed Forces report that were handed over to the Government in March 1996. In this de cision-making process the Supreme Commander tried different ways to create participation among all the high- ranking officers, from local up to Headquarters level, to make them participate in the process. The thesis answers the question if it is possible to create participation in a bureau cratic organisation such as the Swedish Armed Forces, and the conclusion that I draw is that participation is hard to establish. First there is a conflict within the bureaucratic form itself, since a bureaucracy impl ies a diversification of assignments and responsibilities in different functions and at different l evels in a hierarchy. Every level has its own task to fulfil and this states how reality is to be understood. In the Swedish Armed Forces the bureaucratic structure is reinforced by the fact that the officer is promoted to a higher rank after his or her military training. Both the bureaucratic structure and the military training will lead to a differentiation between individuals, and they will be placed in diff erent skills and status levels within the organisation. Besides this, individuals will gather information mostly from their own level, which will further fortify the difference between the levels. Furthermore there are also individual factors connected to the bureaucratic structure that have shown to complicate participation. For example individuals choose not to participate since they experience that the y lack necessary competens for the task, that they do not have time, that they have not been consulted or that they consider the task to be solved at a higher level. So even if the military decision-making model encourages and advocates partici pation, there is a big difficulty to break the bureaucratic design. Leaders often show inability to go from a bureaucratic leadership style to a democratic one. At the same time the subordinate support their leaders when they act as a traditional leader. Keywords: organisation, participation, bureaucracy, hierarchy, oligarchy, leader ship, military affairs <> *c/> B .V 'V Sociologiska institutionen Umeå Universitet ÄR DELAKTIGHET MÖJLIG I EN BYRÅKRATI? En fallstudie inom Försvarsmakten av det arbete som föregick försvarsbeslut -96 Erna Danielsson Akademiska avhandlingar vid Sociologiska institutionen Umeå Universitet No 26 2002 Sociologiska institutionen Umeå universitet Avhandling 2002 Tryckt av Eländers Gotab, Vällingby Ordernummer: 38403 ©Erna Danielsson ISSN 1104-2508 ISBN 91-7305-177-2 Danielsson, Erna. Ar delaktighet möjlig i en byr åkrati? En fallstudie inom Försvarsmakten av det arbete som föregick försvarsbeslut -96 [Is participation possible in a bureau cracy? A case study with in the Swedis h Arme d Force s focusing on the work that preceded the 1996 Resolution on Defence]. Swedish text with a summary in English. Doctoral Dissertation in Sociology at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Umeå University, 2002. ISBN 91-7305-177-2 ISSN 1104-2508 ABSTRACT This thesis is about the conflict between participation and bureaucracy. This conflict is illustrated by a case study within the Swedish Armed Fo rces under the activity that preceded the 1996 Resolution on Defence. More closely it focuses on the decision-making process that led to the Swedish Armed Forces report that were handed over to the Government in March 1996. In this decision-making process the Supreme Commander tried different ways to create participation among all the high- ranking officers, from local up to Headquarters level, to make them participate in the process. The thesis answers the question if it is possible to create participation in a bureau cratic organisation such as the Swedish Armed Forces, and the conclusion that I draw i s that participation is hard to establish. First there is a conflict within the bureaucratic form itself, since a bureaucracy implies a diversification of assignments and responsibilities in different functions and at different levels in a hierarchy. Every level has its own task to fulfil and this states how reality i s to be understood. In the Swedish Armed Forces the bureaucratic structure is reinforced by the fact that the officer is promoted to a higher rank after h is or her military training. Both the bureaucratic structure and the mi litary training will lead to a differentiation between individuals, and they will be placed in different skills and status levels within the organisation. Besides this, individuals will gather infor mation mostly from their own level, which will further fortify the difference between the lev els. Furthermore there are also individual factors connected to the bureaucratic structure that have shown to complicate participation. For example individuals c hoose not to participate since they e xperience that they lack necessary competens for the task, that they do not have time, that they have not been consulted or that the y consider the task to be solved at a higher level. So even if the military decision-making model encourages and a dvocates partici pation, there is a big d ifficulty to break the bureaucratic design. Leaders often show inability to go from a bureaucratic leadership style to a democratic on e. At the same time the subordinate support their leaders when they act as a traditional leader. Keywords : organisation, participation, bureaucracy, hierarchy, oligarchy, leader ship, military affairs INNEHÅLLSFÖRTECKNING Förord 6 DEL 1 8 1 INLEDNING 8 1.1 Överlevnadskriget 9 1.2 Försvarsbesl utsprocessen 10 1.3 Syfte och frågeställning 11 1.4 Undersökningen 13 1.5 Konsekvenserna av att välja ett visst perspektiv 14 1.6 Disposition 14 2 MILITÄRA SÄRDRAG 16 2.1 Den militära professionens utveckling 16 2.2 Att förstå socialiseringen till officer 21 2.2.1 Den militära socialisationen 29 2.2.2 Det militära ledarskapet 35 2.2.2.1 Chefen och Ledarskapet 37 2.3 Den militära organisationen 42 2.3.1 Militär beslutsfattande 50 2.4 Militärer och politik 51 2.4.1 Politiska och militära perspektiv på säkerhet 53 2.5 Försvarsmakten efter 1994-07-01 55 2.6 Sammanfattning 59 DEL II 61 3 TEORI 61 3.1 Organisatoriska särdrag 62 3.1.1 Byråkrati 63 3.1.2 Hierarkiska särdrag 67 3.1.3 Oligarki 68 3.1.4 Demokratiska principer och delaktighet 70 3.1.5 Referensgrupper 75 3.1.6 Individens fria vilja i organisationen 76 3.2 Beslutsprocessen 79 3.2.1 Beslut 80 3.3 Sammanfattning 81 4 METOD 83 4.1 Intervjuguide och förstudie 83 4.1.1 Förstudie 83 4.2 Urval för undersökningen 85 4.2.1 Urval av förband 85 4.2.2 Urval av intervjupersoner 86 4.2.3 Intervjupersoner i försvarsdepartementet och försvarsutskottet 87 4.3 Data 88 4.4 Procedur 88 4.5 Databearbetning 89 4.6 Reliabilitet och validitet 91 1 4.6.1 Intervjusituationen 92 4.6.2 Intervjuguiden 93 4.7 Sammanfattande avslutning 94 DEL III 96 5 DELAKTIGA 96 5.1 Bakgrund 98 5.2 Uppdraget att utarbeta Försvarsmaktsplan 97 100 5.3 Etapperna 102 5.3.1 Etapp 1 104 5.3.1.1 Ramar för att utarbeta krigsorganisation 105 5.3.2 Etapp 2 106 5.3.2.1 Ramarna för grundorganisationen 107 5.4 Att involvera och förankra på lokal nivå 109 5.5 Lojalitet 112 5.5.1 Mötet med ÖB 113 5.5.2 Lokal nivås upplevelse av lojalitetskravet 118 5.5.3 Summering 120 5.6 Delaktighet 122 5.6.1 Framtagande av underlag 123 5.6.2 Tidspress 125 5.6.3 Summering 127 5.7 Information 128 5.7.1 Formella informationskällor 130 5.7.2 Andra- och tredjehandsinformation 133 5.7.3 Undanhållande av information 140 5.7.4 Summering 143 5.8 Chefernas överväganden 146 5.8.1 Överväganden på central nivå 149 5.8.1.1 Det nya kriget 151 5.8.1.2 Försvarsgrenschefernas överväganden 153 5.8.2 Summering 156 5.9 Diskussion 157 5.9.1 Byråkratisk hierarki 158 5.9.2 Rollkraven 161 6 CHOCKEN 164 6.1 Chocken att bli nedlagd 165 6.2 Besvikelser 168 6.3 Ett omöjligt val 170 6.4 Motståndet på central nivå 171 6.5 Bristande kompetens på högkvarteret 174 6.6 Förtroendet för cheferna 175 6.7 Olika initiativ för förbandets bevarande 177 6.7.1 Bra kontakter 182 6.7.2 Den politiska kanalen 185 6.7.3 Att skriva brev 186 6.8 Tystnaden 190 6.9 Centrala chefers utsatthet 191 6.10 Diskussion 193 6.10.1 Förväntan på process en 195 7 GRANSKNINGEN 200 2 7.1 Arbetet och uppgiften 201 7.2 Jakten efter mening 201 7.2.1 Ingen insyn