Analysing power and control in work organizations: Assimilating a critical socio-psychodynamic perspective
- Organizational Power, Management Control Systems, System-Justifying Ideologies, Psychodynamics, Critical Management Studies, Subjectification, Governmentality, Social Character
- Örgütsel Güç, Yönetim Kontrol Sistemleri, Sistemi Haklı Çıkaran Ideolojiler, Psikodinamik, Kritik Yönetim Çalışmaları, Subjektifleştirme, Yönetişim, Sosyal Karakter
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This conceptual article draws on critical traditions from several social science disciplines, notably, social, political, and systems theory, sociology, psychology, and management studies, as it seeks to explore, assemble, and integrate some constitutive components of a socio- and psychodynamic perspective on power and control in work organizations. At its core is an archetypal taxonomy of formal (economic), real (technocratic), normative (ideological), and formative (biopolitical) modes of power and managerial control through various means and combinations of commodification (contracts, compensation, competition), coercion (commands, constraints, compliance), cooptation (culture, consent, commitment), and creation (corrosion, conception, coevolution). Other integral elements are domains or foci of inquiry, specifically, interests, ideologies, institutions, and identities. These domains are linked to meta-, macro-, meso-, and micro-levels of analysis, resembling economy, society, organization, and individual. Accordingly, behavioural control and psychological governance processes are reinforced by a pervasive economic system logic, cascading into political, social, and psychodynamic sublogics. These taxonomies are integrated with concepts from the depth and dynamic psychology and traced across economic (meta-system interests), societal (macro-political ideologies), organizational (meso-social institutions), and individual (micro-psychodynamic identities) levels revealing patterns of self-similarity. It is argued that societal subsumption and subjugation reproduce psychodynamic subjectification (submission, sublimation) at the individual level, mediated by the subordinating and socializing forces inherent in organizational control systems. Discussed are implications for the dynamics of power and control in contemporary societies, organizations, and individuals under hegemonic governance of neoliberal ideology.
- Adler, P. S., Forbes, L. C., & Willmott, H. (2007). Critical management studies. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 119-179.
- Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2004). Interfaces of control. Technocratic and socio-ideological control in a global management consultancy firm. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3-4), 423-444.
- Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 67-97.
- Archibald, W. P. (2009). Globalization, downsizing and insecurity: Do we need to upgrade Marx’s theory of alienation? Critical Sociology, 35(3), 319-342.
- Aslan, A. & Özeren, E. (2018). “Earthquake will pass, and the life will go on”: A critical reading of public spots of DASK. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(4), 1271-1284.
- Bal, P. M., & Dóci, E. (2018). Neoliberal ideology in work and organizational psychology. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(5), 536-548.
- Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 363-399.
- Berman, J. (2010). Biopolitical management, economic calculation and “trafficked women”. International Migration, 48(4), 84-113.
- Bodrožić, Z., & Adler, P. S. (2018). The evolution of management models: A neo-Schumpeterian theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 85-129.
- Büssing, A. (2002). Trust and its relations to commitment and involvement in work and organisations. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(4), 36-42.
- Clegg, S. (2009). Foundations of organization power. Journal of Power, 2(1), 35-64.
- Clegg, S. (2019). Governmentality. Project Management Journal, 50(3), 266-270.
- Deacon, R. (2002). An analytics of power relations: Foucault on the history of discipline. History of the Human Sciences, 15(1), 89-117.
- Durepos, G., Shaffner, E. C., & Taylor, S. (2019). Developing critical organizational history: Context, practice and implications. Organization, online first.
- Eagleton, T. (2000). Base and superstructure revisited. New Literary History, 31(2), 231-240.
- Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power, involvement, and their correlates. New York: Free Press.
- Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2014). Power in management and organization science. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 237-298.
- Fluxman, T. (2009). Marx, rationalism and the critique of the market. South African Journal of Philosophy, 28(4), 377-413.
- Foster, R. (2017). Social character: Erich Fromm and the ideological glue of neoliberalism. Critical Horizons, 18(1), 1-18.
- Fotaki, M., Long, S., & Schwartz, H. S. (2012). What can psychoanalysis offer organization studies today? Taking stock of current developments and thinking about future directions. Organization Studies, 33(9), 1105-1120.
- Fromm, E. (2010). The pathology of normalcy. New York: Lantern Books.
- Fuchs, C. (2017). Critical social theory and sustainable development: The role of class, capitalism and domination in a dialectical analysis of un/sustainability. Sustainable Development, 25(5), 443-458.
- Fumagalli, A. (2015). The concept of subsumption of labour to capital: Towards life subsumption in bio-cognitive capitalism. In E. Fisher and C. Fuchs (Eds.). Reconsidering value and labour in the digital age (pp. 224-245). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Funk, R. (1998). Erich Fromm's concept of social character. Social Thought & Research, 21(1-2), 215-229.
- Gabriel, Y., & Carr, A. (2002). Organizations, management and psychoanalysis: An overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(5), 348-365.
- Gandini, A. (2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6), 1039-1056.
- Gerdin, J. (2020). Management control as a system: Integrating and extending theorizing on MC complementarity and institutional logics. Management Accounting Research 49, online first.
- Gill, M. J. (2019). The significance of suffering in organizations: Understanding variation in workers’ responses to multiple modes of control. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 377-404.
- Glynos, J. (2008). Ideological fantasy at work. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(3), 275-296.
- Glynos, J. (2011). On the ideological and political significance of fantasy in the organization of work. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 16(4), 373-393.
- Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052-1081.
- Haskaj, F. (2018). From biopower to necroeconomies: Neoliberalism, biopower and death economies. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 44(10), 1148-1168.
- Hornung, S. (2010). Alienation matters: Validity and utility of Etzioni's theory of commitment in explaining prosocial organizational behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(8), 1081-1095.
- Hornung, S., & Höge, T. (2019). Humanization, rationalization or subjectification of work? Employee-oriented flexibility between i-deals and ideology in the neoliberal era. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(5), 3090-3119.
- Hornung, S., Höge, T., & Unterrainer, C. (2021). Ideologies at work in organizations: An emerging critical perspective and reflexive research agenda. In M. H. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, & S. Vale (Eds.). Eurasian business perspectives. Proceedings 29th EBES Conference (pp. 165-182). Cham: Springer
- Jimenez, L. (2019). The psychosocial significance of social character, habitus and structures of feeling in research on neoliberal post-industrial work. Journal of Psychosocial Studies, 12(3), 259-276.
- Jost, J. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 263-314.
- Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919.
- LaMothe, R. (2016). The colonizing realities of neoliberal capitalism. Pastoral Psychology, 65(1), 23-40.
- McDonald, M., & Bubna‐Litic, D. (2012). Applied social psychology: A critical theoretical perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(12), 853-86.
- Moisander, J., Groß, C., & Eräranta, K. (2018). Mechanisms of biopower and neoliberal governmentality in precarious work: Mobilizing the dependent self-employed as independent business owners. Human Relations, 71(3), 375-398.
- Mumby, D. K. (2019). Work: What is it good for? (Absolutely nothing)–a critical theorist’s perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 12(4), 429-443.
- Mumby, D. K., Thomas, R., Martí, I., & Seidl, D. (2017). Resistance redux. Organization Studies, 38(9), 1157-1183.
- Munro, I. (2012). The management of circulations: Biopolitical variations after Foucault. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(3), 345-362.
- Ozcan, K. (2012). From the Frankfurt school to business schools: Critical management studies in Turkey. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(1), 107–123
- Pongratz, H. J., & Voß, G. G. (2003). From employee to ‘entreployee’: Towards a ‘self-entrepreneurial’ work force? Concepts and Transformation, 8(3), 239-254.
- Proudfoot, D., & Kay, A. C. (2014). System justification in organizational contexts: How a motivated preference for the status quo can affect organizational attitudes and behaviors. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 173-187.
- Pyysiäinen, J., Halpin, D., & Guilfoyle, A. (2017). Neoliberal governance and ‘responsibilization’ of agents: Reassessing the mechanisms of responsibility-shift in neoliberal discursive environments. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 215-235.
- Roesler, C. (2012). Are archetypes transmitted more by culture than biology? Questions arising from conceptualizations of the archetype. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 57(2), 223-246.
- Rose, N., O'Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2, 83-104.
- Sayers, S. (2007). The concept of labor: Marx and his critics. Science & Society, 71(4), 431-454.
- Seeck, H., Sturdy, A., Boncori, A. L., & Fougère, M. (2020). Ideology in management studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 22(1), 53-74.
- Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: Norton.
- Strauß, E., & Zecher, C. (2013). Management control systems: A review. Journal of Management Control, 23, 233-268.
- Thompson, P. (2010). The capitalist labour process: Concepts and connections. Capital & Class, 34, 7-14.
- Townley, B. (1993). Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 518-545.
- Vaughn Becker, D., & Neuberg, S. L. (2019). Archetypes reconsidered as emergent outcomes of cognitive complexity and evolved motivational systems. Psychological Inquiry, 30(2), 59-75.
- Vercellone, C. (2007). From formal subsumption to general intellect: Elements for a Marxist reading of the thesis of cognitive capitalism. Historical Materialism, 15(1), 13-36.
- Wang, Y., & Polillo, S. (2016). Power in organizational society: Macro, meso and micro. In S. Abrutyn (Ed.). Handbook of contemporary sociological theory (pp. 43-61). Cham: Springer.
- Westra, R. (2019). Periodizing capitalism and capitalist extinction. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Weiskopf, R., & Loacker, B. (2006). A snake's coils are even more intricate than a mole's burrow: Individualization and subjectification in post-disciplinary regimes of work. Management Revue, 17(4), 395-419.