Organizações não convencionais: um estudo comparativo de casos

Abstract

The contradictions and problems of the dominant organizational model in modernity are prominently perceptible in human and environmental dimensions. In this scenario, attention is drawn to organizations that seek alternatives to the dominant mode. Thus, in order to contribute to the better understanding of organizational modes that distinguish and contrast the dominant organizational mode and, with a view to better understand alternative ways to the current paradigm, this study aimed to understand two organizations that experience organizational practices distinct from the dominant way of organizing: the Community Organization and the Collective Organization. The methodology used was the comparative qualitative study of cases, in which the two organizations were described, highlighting their characteristics, profiles of the members and ways of organizing. Second, the two organizations were compared to each other, highlighting major differences and similarities. Finally, the two organizations were compared to the dominant organizational model. To do so, two bases of comparison were established: 1) the mode of organization and 2) the alignment to the premises that guide the dominant mode of organization, i.e. market orientation, economic growth and technical efficiency. The findings point out that, regarding the mode of organizing, the organizations investigated presented some practices that the specialized literature consider alternatives to the dominant mode of organization. However, it also indicates that these practices are followed by the same contradictions that characterize the dominant bureaucratic mode of organization. Regarding the alignment or not with the premises that guide the dominant model, the Community Organization established intentional limits to the premises of the dominant model. The Collective Organization, at an organizational level, did not question the premises of the dominant mode. However, at the individual level, some of its members indirectly demonstrated that they imposed intentional limits on individual economic growth, in exchange for quality of life and well-being. Ultimately, the apparent limit that the Collective Organization imposes on the technical efficiency seems to work as the adoption of a positioning strategy of market differentiation.