Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 1 Part One: Perspectives The aim of this part is to discuss methodological issues surrounding the analysis of organizations in general and Olympic organizations in particular, review developments in the organization theory lit- erature with a focus on structural formations and types and finally discuss approaches to event man- agement in the context of mega project planning. Defining the Scope of the Analysis The approach adopted here is to conceptualize the organizational analyses presented in this book as a series of conversations (Clegg & Hardy, 1996) that relate to the (Olympic) organizations as empirical objects and organizing as a social process. In line with Clegg (1990) we start with the premise that organizations are empirical objects. By this we mean that we see something when we see an organiza- tion, but each of us may see something different. As researchers, we participate in enactment and interpretation processes. We choose what empirical sense we wish to make of organiza- tions by deciding how we wish to represent them in our work. How aspects of Olympic organiza- tions are represented, the means of represen- tation, the features deemed salient, those features glossed and those features ignored, are not attributes of the organization.They are Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 2 Olympic Event Organization an effect of the reciprocal interaction of multiple conversations: those that are professionally organized, through journals, research agendas, cit- ations, and networks; those that take place in the empirical world of these organizations. The dynamics of reciprocity in this mutual interaction can vary: some conversations of practice inform those of the profession; some professionals talk dominated practice; some practical and professional conversations sustain each other; others talk past, miss, and ignore each other (p. 4). With this conceptualization of analyses of (Olympic) organizations one can strive for reflexivity, by which we allude to ways of seeing which act back on and reflect existing ways of seeing. None is a more ‘correct’ analysis than any other: there are different possibilities. Like any good conversa- tion, the dialectic is reflexive and oriented not to ultimate agreement, but to the possibilities of understanding of and action within the contested terrains (p. 5). Plenty of homogenized textbooks exist which offer certainties enough for those who require them and converting the anxieties of their readers into easy recipes and conventions. For students reading this book who endeavour to understand the Olympic events’ organization and grasp the complexity of the interactions between the various agents and agencies involved the book provides a starting point. For those aiming to engage theory to understand practise there are conceptual frameworks that aid theorizing. For managers in Olympic organizations there is the opportunity to see the broader organiza- tional picture, the interdependencies of the Olympic business setup and the challenges presented by the contexts within which this array of organiza- tions is operating. For Smith and Peterson (1988: pp. 47–48) definition of events of any kind have certain amount of elasticity in both space and time. Tentative bound- aries defining an event could be placed around an exchange between individ- uals and organizations. The context, which would be an implicit but integral part of this event, would include things like the previous relationships between them, other occurrences in their respective work and personal lives, and the physical characteristics of the setting. Alternatively, an event could be defined as the entire history of the relationship between these two parties. If we choose the second perspective, the organization’s history as well as occurrences within the industry or the nation must be considered as the implicit context of the event. Thus, an ‘event’ comprised of various ‘occa- sions’ is constructed out of the information available to an observer, whether that observer is an actor or an ‘objective’ outsider. However, the imposition of boundaries around an event is not arbitrary, and it derives from what is actually done by the parties involved.The involved parties are seen as actually constructing ‘Gestalts’ or unified sets of perceptions, which may parallel the events constructed by observers. Similarly, Olympic events can be defined as 2 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 3 Perspectives the history of relationships between the Olympic Movement and the host city country. Positivist and constructivist research paradigms are important in the sense that they can provide particular sets of lenses for seeing the social world. The theoretical approach of the organizational analyses reported in this book is founded on the realization that the ability to analyse phenomena of various kinds in organizations depends on the adequacy of the theoretical schemes employed. Such theoretical schemes not only guided the search for significant relationships that exist in the organizational settings of Olympic organizations but also assisted in establishing the difference in the researcher’s eyes, between simply knowing of a phenomenon and understanding its mean- ing. As a consequence, the research efforts were aided by the substantive bodies of theories that are discussed in this part. Bedeian (1980) claims that theory serves both as a tool and as a goal.The tool function being evident in the proposition that theories guide research by generating new predictions not otherwise likely to occur.As a goal, theory is often an end in itself, providing an economical and efficient means of abstracting, codifying, summarizing, integrating, and storing information. Before reviewing the emerging theoretical perspectives available to organ- izational analysts an attempt can be made to investigate how such perspectives can be mediated for purposes of inclusion and application. Morgan (1997) argues that the research possibilities raised by different theoretical perspec- tives need to be harnessed in order to yield the rich and varied explanations offered by multiple paradigm analysis. Like Morgan, Willmott (1990) is also concerned with paradigm plurality. Both examine Burrell’s (1996) scheme of competing paradigms, according to which social science can be conceptualized in terms of four sets of assumptions related to ontology, epistemology, human nature, and methodology (Figure 1.1). Willmott (1990) explores the possibilities for reconciling what Burrell (1996) regard as the irreconcilable features of these paradigms. He argues that the assumption of paradigmatic closure should be challenged by exam- ining the attempts of Giddens (1979; 1982) to integrate subjective and object- ive paradigms. The organizational analyses presented in this book have been concerned to move away from approaches based upon the dualism between action and structure, whereby a contrast is drawn between a structural perspective which specifies abstract dimensions and abstract constraints, to an interactionist perspective which attends to symbolic mediation and negotiated processes. Willmott (1990) argues that these procedures and perspectives which, used to be regarded as incompatible, must be incorporated in a more unified methodological framework. It is important to note that the aim of the research undertaken within the organization theories perspectives was to provide a better understanding of the organizational characteristics and dynamics found in Olympic organ- izations. This was to be achieved through the development of analytically 3 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 4 Olympic Event Organization A Ontology N Epistemology T I N P P O R O O M Looking for S S I E I Rationality or I what appears A N T empiricism? T to be or L A I I I L actual things? V V I S I I S M S S M M M Methodology Human Nature V D I N O E D O L T E M U People’s actions E O Exploring O N stemming from R G emergent ideas or T T free will or M R the application H A I A of laws? E R predetermined? N P T I I H I S S I C M M C Figure 1.1 Variety of assumptions about the nature of social sciences (Source: Adapted from Burrell (1996)) structured narratives which, as Hassard and Pym (1990) argue, link agents’ actions, structure, and context as they interweave within structural inertia, random events, contextual discontinuities, and significant changes in the environment. Theoreticians have attempted to ‘fix’ the organizational world and by reducing its dynamics to a static classificatory system, imprison it. In this they have forced organizational analysis onto a procrustean bed on which it groans and squirms because it is not the right size to fit the cramping framework into which it is being pressed.Yet the forcing goes on. Each of the terms to be addressed below forces the subject into an understand- able and simplifying framework.This after all is what science does. But we must realize that what every concept does is to exclude as well as include, ignore as well as concentrate upon, to consign to obscurity as well as bring into the limelight. Concepts stretch the point and nowhere more than in the concept of paradigm (Burrell, 1996: p. 646). Morgan (1997) argues that by using different metaphors to understand the complex and paradoxical character of organizational life, we are able to manage and design ways that we may not have thought possible. His use of different metaphors can also aid identification of issues and areas of friction 4 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41