Mod 4 reading response

On the Idea of Emancipation in Management and Organization Studies Author(s): Mats Alvesson and Hugh Willmott Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 432-464 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/258718 Accessed: 25-03-2020 03:32 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

C Academy of Management Review 1992, Vol. 17, No. 3, 432-464.

ON THE IDEA OF EMANCIPATION IN MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION STUDIES

MATS ALVESSON

University of Gothenburg

HUGH WILLMOTT

University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

The article reconceptualizes the meaning of emancipation in manage-

ment and organization studies and develops an approach that (a)

takes into account recent criticism of its "totalizing" tendencies raised

by poststructuralists and (b) makes it more sensitive to the particu-

larities of-and thereby more relevant for-management studies.

The first part of the article reviews and discusses tendencies in crit-

ical theory toward negativism, essentialism, and intellectualism. The

second part reformulates the grand enterprise of emancipation into a

more modest project, scaled down in terms of scope and ambition. The

third part discusses ways of advancing this project in terms of listen- ing, writing, and reading.

The objective of this article is to reevaluate the concept of emancipation,

developed by the Frankfurt School and other proponents of Critical Theory (CT)1 in the light of recent critiques from poststructuralism, especially Foucault. Emancipation describes the process through which individuals and groups become freed from repressive social and ideological conditions, in particular those that place socially unnecessary restrictions upon the

development and articulation of human consciousness. The intent of CT is to facilitate clarification of the meaning of human need and expansion of au- tonomy in personal and social life. Ultimately, its purpose is to enable "members of a society to alter their lives by fostering in them the sort of self-knowledge and understanding of their social conditions which can serve as the basis for such an alteration" (Fay, 1987: 23). Examples of au- thors in management and organization theory whose work is explicitly

guided by this concern include Alvesson and Willmott (1992, In press), Bur- rell and Morgan (1979), Deetz (1992a), Deetz and Kersten (1983), Frost (1980), Jermier (1985), Mumby (1988), Stablein and Nord (1985), and Steffy and Grimes (1986). The more specific aim of this article is to apply and relate the idea of emancipation to the context of management and organization stud-

1 We acknowledge the danger of lumping together members of the Frankfurt School who developed distinctive positions. See Connerton (1980), Held (1980), and Jay (1973) for compar- atively accessible introductions to the complex and evolving positions of major figures within

the School.

432

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 433

ies (i.e., a field of study that is ostensibly oriented to practical consider-

ations).

Within mainstream management and organization studies (MOS), two dominant attitudes to the notion of emancipation can be found. One imme- diate, "hard-nosed" response to talk of emancipation is to reject any sug-

gestion that management is in any way associated with such a fancy idea as emancipation. The role of management, it is argued, is to ensure the

survival/growth/profitability of the organization or to satisfy shareholders/ customers/(and to some extent) workers, or more cynically, to keep the

shareholders/customers/workers off the backs of managers. The business of management, managerialists and Marxists might agree, is about safe-

guarding the interests of shareholders by controlling the productive capac- ity of workers (Storey, 1985). It has nothing to do with emancipation.

An alternative, "softer" response, closer but still at considerable dis- tance from the position of CT (and of this article), is that much modern management theory is concerned with freeing employees from unnecessar- ily alienating forms of work organization. From human relations through

quality of work life (QWL) programs to corporate culture, a priority of hu- manistic management theory has been to redesign material and symbolic conditions of work to facilitate the realization of higher order human needs (e.g., self-actualization), to improve job satisfaction, and to raise productiv- ity. When management provides opportunities deemed to satisfy such

needs, the "emancipation" of employees from alienating conditions of work is said to be complete.

From a perspective informed by CT, which is advanced in this article, this "softer" approach to "emancipation" can be given a reserved welcome. Critical theorists recognize employees as subjects who have higher order needs and appreciate the value of managing people in a caring, respon-

sible manner. The welcome is qualified, however, because this "softer" approach is based upon a narrow and mystifying understanding of key prerequisites of emancipation. Such an approach mobilizes a discourse-a way of communicating about and, thereby, constituting the social world of (bourgeois) humanism in which the emancipation of individuals is iden- tified with the provision of opportunities for the fulfillment of their needs (as long as this fulfillment coexists with and, especially, improves organiza- tional performance).

From a CT perspective, which is examined in depth in the following section, emancipation necessarily involves an active process (or struggle)

for individual and collective self-determination. According to this perspec- tive, researchers are skeptical about-though not necessarily implacably opposed to-the effects of top-down change, which are salient in most versions of humanistic management theory. For CT, emancipation is not a

gift bestowed upon employees; rather it necessitates the (often painful) re- sistance to, and overcoming of, socially unnecessary restrictions, such as the fear of failure and sexual and racial discrimination. In the absence of

this struggle, increased discretion bestowed by "soft" varieties of manage-

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

434 Academy of Management Review July

ment theory is understood to have the (paradoxical) effect of weakening employees' capacity to reflect critically on their work situation, for example, where delegation of responsibility is accompanied by the (centralized) strengthening of corporate culture.2

Regarding CT, any substantial and lasting form of emancipatory change must involve a process of critical self-reflection and associated self- transformation. From this perspective, emancipation is not to be equated with, or reduced to, piecemeal social engineering directed by a somewhat benevolent management. Rather, its conception of the emancipatory proj- ect encompasses a much broader set of issues that includes the transfor- mation of gender relations, environmental husbandry, the development of workplace democracy, and so forth.

Our concern, then, is to explore how the emancipatory impulse of Crit- ical Theory may be retained, albeit in revised form, in the face of theoretical and practical critiques from poststructuralist and practitioner positions. Without disregarding the contribution of CT's panoramic, utopian vision to the project of emancipation, we are concerned with making it more relevant and accessible to the more mundane world of management and organiza- tion. In particular, we seek to correct and go beyond CT's tendency to put down conventional wisdom. By engaging in a kind of conversation between these three orientations-of Critical Theorists, poststructuralists, and prac- titioners-we explore what space there may be for advancing the emanci- patory project. First, a brief account of CT is provided and then three kinds of critique that believers of CT, particularly in the context of MOS, must take seriously are reviewed and formulated. Next, a framework for a modified understanding of emancipation as a response to this critique is described, a reconceptualization that is facilitated by distinguishing key dimensions of an emancipatory project. Finally, specific suggestions for emancipatory re- search are offered concerning ways of listening, writing, and reading where space is given to critical reflection/enhancement of emancipation as well as to other, more traditional aims.

The discussion circles around various topics-power, knowledge, im- provement, autonomy, ends, and so on. Arguments, comments, critiques, and countercritiques arise from, and are directed against, each of the three orientations. Exploratory and perhaps provocative in nature, this article does not presume to have definitive answers to the questions it raises, nor does it claim to provide an integration or a reconciliation of the positions it examines. It does offer a set of brief exchanges, comments, and ideas as a contribution to a debate about the idea of emancipation in management studies, with CT taking center stage. Because the various themes explored in the article have more or less salience for the various voices that appear in the article, these can be heard at different times and to different effect.

2 Moreover, if a more participative management philosophy is combined with a corporate culture that successfully instills a restricted number of values into its employees, its emanci- patory effects are severely dampened.

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 435

This discussion is highly tentative; it is meant to encourage greater dialogue between the mainstream and critical areas of management, but without harboring any illusions about differences in their respective positions. Therefore, our discussion is as open-ended as possible.

THE CRITICAL THEORY PROJECT OF EMANCIPATION

Critical theorists work within the Enlightenment tradition-a tradition

originally dedicated to changing institutions such as the divine right of Kings, the church, feudal bondage, and prejudiced and superstitious ideas. Researchers in this area have combined a philosophical understanding of the human basis of seemingly divine or superhuman (e.g., scientific) au-

thority with an empirical investigation of contemporary ideas, dogmas, and prejudices. A fundamental claim of the proponents of CT is that social sci- ence can and should contribute to the liberation of people from unneces-

sarily restrictive traditions, ideologies, assumptions, power relations, iden- tity formations, and so forth, that inhibit or distort opportunities for auton-

omy, clarification of genuine needs and wants, and thus greater and lasting

satisfaction (e.g., Fay, 1987; Fromm, 1976; Habermas, 1971, 1984; Horkhei- mer & Adorno, 1947; Marcuse, 1964). The combination of philosophy with

empirical investigation is of fundamental importance. Without philosophy, empirical study is understood to solidify and legitimize existing dogmas and prejudices. It appears to mirror reality. But it achieves this affect by disre- garding how the behavior and belief (e.g., of employees) are historically and culturally conditioned and by paying no attention to the way research methodology and instrumentation are involved in producing and sustaining a construction of reality. Central to CT is the emancipatory potential of reason to reflect critically on how the reality of the social world, including the construction of the self, is socially produced and, therefore, is open to transformation. The task of Critical Theory is to combine philosophy with social science to facilitate the development of change in an emancipatory direction.

In Horkheimer's (1937/1976: 220) original formulation of CT, critical think- ing, is understood to be

motivated by the effort really to transcend the tension and to abolish the opposition between the individual's purposefulness, spontaneity, and rationality, and those work-process relation- ships on which society is built. Critical thought has a concept of man [sic] as in conflict with himself until this opposition is re- moved.

This alienated state of consciousness is regarded as irrational when it is remembered that human beings are the producers, and not simply the receivers or products, of this knowledge. CT challenges the dominant, com- monsense view of individuals as insular seats of consciousness that exist independently of the historical processes through which a (bourgeois) sense

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

436 Academy of Management Review July

of being an autonomous individual is generated. In the absence of demo- cratic control of the institutional media, including industry and science through which the consciousness of individuals is formed, the representa- tion and self-understanding of the subject as free and autonomous are viewed as an expression of "false-consciousness." Accordingly, a key ob- jective of CT is to challenge those forms of knowledge and practice that serve to sustain the illusion of autonomy and to replace the illusion with a structure of social relations in which "autonomy" in the guise of individual- ism is transformed from a pillar of bourgeois ideology into a practical reality.

Through CT, researchers share the understanding that the value of science, including social science, resides in its potential to develop condi- tions (material and symbolic) that are beneficial to human beings. The tra- dition of the Enlightenment, out of which modern science emerged, offers the promise of applying the critical powers of reason to expose and remove

contemporary forms of unreason, superstition, and dogmatism. In the field of management, one powerful dogma, challenged by "softer" philosophies of management, has been the belief that man is economically rational and that Taylorism provides the one best way of designing and managing work.

The challenge illustrates another central thesis of CT: that science (recall Taylor's description of his principles as "scientific") can be used to legitimize new dogmas. With reference to the "softer," behavioral approaches to man- agement, CT enables researchers to reflect critically upon their scientific credentials and practical limits (for overviews, see Alvesson & Willmott, 1992, In press). Uncritical acceptance of behavioral scientists' understand- ing of human needs, critical theorists suggest, amounts to the development of a new dogma that preserves conditions of work that deny or place socially unnecessary restrictions on processes of self-determination.

The dominant tendency of CT has been to dismiss modern manage- ment theory as an expression of technocratic thinking that seeks to manip- ulate human potential and desire in order to bolster a falsely naturalized status quo (Alvesson, 1987; Tinker & Lowe, 1984). Management theorists are criticized for failing to appreciate the historical, socially constructed nature of existing work processes and for interpreting individual employee's needs (e.g., for money, security, and self-actualization) as essential to human nature, rather than as a manifestation of the structure of social relations in which these needs are constructed and interpreted. When the existing order is viewed as a given, the fulfillment of individuals' needs can be satisfied only in terms of capitalism, an understanding that severely confines the space for integration between individuals and organizations. In the con- temporary context, the authority of science and technology (for example, technocratic methods of decision making) as well as ideologies of manage- rialism (in which managerial expertise is viewed as the high priest/chief interpreter of rationality) are regarded as sources of mystification and re- striction, equivalent to witchcraft and feudal bondage. In the workplace, the favoring of technocratic rather than democratic forms of organization and

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 437

philosophies of management, and the equation of freedom with the perfec- tion of market relations, are regarded as major (ideological as well as prac-

tical) obstacles to greater autonomy.

From a CT perspective, scope for realizing purposefulness, spontane- ity, and rationality through the piecemeal reform of existing structures is

understood to be limited, though nonetheless worth undertaking so long as these limits are recognized and appreciated. If the ideals of CT are to be

fully realized, social structures must be radically changed so that they ac- tively support and facilitate, rather than selectively and instrumentally ex- ploit, expansion of purposiveness, creativity, and rationality. More specifi- cally, the emphasis in decision making about how to manage and organize human and material resources must shift from a narrow focus on seemingly technically rational choices about the efficiency of alternative means (e.g., Fordism versus post-Fordism) to self-consciously rational choices about al- ternative ends (e.g., autonomy versus efficiency).

Given its attack upon established conceptions of science, policy, and practice, it is not surprising that CT has itself been marginalized by main- stream theorists and practitioners. Arguably, its marginality is associated with its apparent lack of realism and practical application. Clearly, CT is not something that can simply be plugged into existing systems to improve their emancipatory performance. And, for this reason, it may seem remote, aloof, and idealistic. There has been a reluctance to engage more directly with the microdynamics of everyday life, including the mundane world of management and organization. In common with other esoteric forms of analysis, CT has assumed a highly abstract, inaccessible form of commu- nication that is easily perceived to express an elitist, pontificating attitude toward understanding people and change. Not only is the work of key

figures in this tradition (e.g., Habermas, Adorno, and even Marcuse) dense, convoluted, and difficult to understand, it is also not assisted by what can easily seem to be a cavalier and dismissive attitude toward the mundane

detail of key institutions and features of modern society, such as contempo- rary developments in management theory and practice. A large chasm exists between the experiences of employees (including managers) in to-

day's corporations and Habermas's philosophical reflections on the ideal speech situation-communication free from the distortions of asymmetrical power relations and ideology-even though the application of the latter undoubtedly has potential to yield penetrating insights into processes of communication within modern organizations (Forester, 1989, 1992).

However, despite justifiable antagonism toward the holier-than-thou attitude of CT, we believe that it is right (a) to stress the connection between science and emancipation and (b) to highlight how this connection is weak- ened and distorted, if not entirely lost, in the sciences of management, including their "softer" variations. A central argument of this article, then, is that CT researchers' understanding of the emancipatory potential of (social

and management) science must be preserved, but that criticism of their aloofness and idealism must also be taken seriously. This criticism has been

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

438 Academy of Management Review July

most incisively developed by poststructuralists, such as Foucault (1980, 1982), who have questioned the assumption that "truth" can be separated from "power" and, relatedly, that the autonomous subject is an attainable ideal. This challenge strikes at the heart of CT because it confronts the basis of CT's "totalizing" critique of ideology and false consciousness.3 Critiques found in poststructuralism (PS) are guided by a more skeptical understand- ing of the possibilities of emancipation. They emphasize how all forms of knowledge express relations of power that have the potential to become a new source of domination, and that any structure of social relations inevi- tably enables and constrains the autonomy of subjects. Accordingly, post- structuralists suggest a more cautious, less idealistic vision of emancipatory transformation. Nonetheless, they retain a commitment to questioning or "deconstructing" seemingly incontrovertible "truths" that exercise a consti- tutive, spellbinding power over modern subjectivity. In this key respect, poststructuralist critique, which stresses the ambiguous, open quality of seemingly fixed, taken-for-granted structures, is in sympathy with the emancipatory project of Critical Theory.

CRITIQUES OF CRITICAL THEORY

In this section we explore further some reservations about CT by elab- orating three types of problems with critical theorists' ideal of social science as a facilitator of emancipation. Criticisms concerned with its intellectualism and essentialism are discussed first before relating its negativism to the marginalization of CT within management and organization studies. The types of critique differ substantially, but we believe that they are equally important. Finally, we argue that these three criticisms can be answered in a way that is responsive to the respective objections.

Intellectualism

At the heart of Critical Theory is an assumption that human reason is an emancipatory force that is constrained and distorted by historical condi- tions. These conditions, it is asserted, inhibit and deflect the ability of human beings to determine their own needs and shape their own destinies. Indi- viduals either experience unnecessary frustration and suffering, or they are victims of alienation in which independence and reflection are weakened, for example, through the impact of science, technology, and mass media,

3 In taking this focus, we recognize that there are significant differences and tensions within Critical Theory (e.g., between Adorno and Habermas), and we also are aware that the poststructuralism label has been actively resisted by many of the theorists to which it has been applied, including Foucault. For us, the contribution of these authors is more important than the labels that are attached to their work. Although the entire body of Foucault's work cannot be identified with poststructuralism, his work on the relation between power, truth, and sub- jectivity does have close affinities with the central concerns of poststructuralism (Weedon, 1988).

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 439

which reduce the individual to a passive object of ego administration. As Fay (1987: 83), stressing the suffering aspect, observed:

Critical social science arises out of, and speaks to, situations of social unhappiness, as situations which it interprets as the result both of the ignorance of those experiencing these feelings and of their domination by others. It is this experience of unhappiness which is the wedge a critical theory uses to justify its entrance into the lives of those it seeks to enlighten and emancipate.

In reflecting further upon the claims of CT, Fay questioned whether the

sequence suffering -> critical reflection -> emancipation is as unproblem- atical as Habermas, for example, has suggested. In particular, he doubts the emancipatory powers attributed to human reason, a doubt that can be

applied with no less force to the capacity of reason to reflect critically upon the passivity and alienation associated with social conditions which, far from inducing feelings of suffering, support almost uninterrupted consump- tion in which desires, and associated identities, are constituted and secured through the acquisition and disposal of a stream of commodities. Critical theorists acknowledge the appeal and power of consumption in producing feelings of pleasure and belonging, but they insist that feelings of emptiness and unfulfillment lie beneath the surface (Fromm, 1976; Scitovsky, 1976; Wachtel, 1983).

Without denying that reason is a potent source of emancipatory force, Fay (1987) argued that powers of reason are inherently limited by somatic learning, in which the logic of the contemporary social order becomes

deeply anchored in the body. Crucially, change is not simply a matter of changing ideas because the influence of tradition and socialization affects the whole person. According to Fay, the person's cultural identity inhibits his or her capacity to exercise critical reason. Because human beings are

"historical, embodied, traditional, and embedded creatures" (Fay, 1987), the responsiveness of subjectivity to rational, critical argument is quite lim-

ited. As a consequence, the highly abstract, cognitive emphasis of CT may prove less than effective in communicating its message and promoting crit- ical self-reflection, let alone emancipatory practice. Indeed, the emphasis

on reflection, evaluation, and freedom in social life may simply lead to recurrent self-questioning and suspicion of all social arrangements. Ten- dencies that lead a person to speculate on what he or she is doing and the optimality of the social order are, perhaps, as likely to create despair as to inspire a process of personal and social reconstruction. As Sartre reminded us, the burden of autonomy is not light.

In response to this criticism of CT, it is first worth noting that major proponents of CT, such as Horkheimer and Adorno (1947) and Marcuse (1964), were very conscious of the limitations of human reason but had no way of dealing with this problem. Their broad-brush critiques of the "totally administrated" or "one-dimensional" society were as much statements of despair as they were serious efforts to stimulate emancipation, even though

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

440 Academy of Management Review July

Marcuse's book, One-Dimensional Man, had the paradoxical effect of con- tributing directly to a widespread questioning of dominant values (e.g., consumerism) and social arrangements which, he claimed, had been dis- abled by modern, technocratic consciousness.

Our response to these doubts about CT is to retain and foster a belief in the power of reason to question conventional wisdom and current practice but, at the same time, to acknowledge its limitations. Moreover, instead of understanding this power as either something universal or endemic to mod- ern society, we are inclined, in the aftershock of the Holocaust, McCarthy- ism, and the Gulags, to regard the critical deployment of reason as a his- torical phenomenon that is salient during different eras. In our view, the means of sustaining, and perhaps reviving, the (limited and depleted) po- tency of critical reason is to develop CT in a direction that is less preoccu- pied with grand theorizing and is more prepared to learn from, and con- tribute to, localized theoretical and practical concerns-a criticism of the intellectualist bias of CT authors that is paralleled in poststructuralist argu- ments against metanarratives and totalizing critiques, to which we now turn.

Essentialism

The criticism of CT for being essentialist is directed at its inclination to reduce or totalize phenomena so that they fit into the interpretive powers of

a single, integrated framework. Poststructuralists have complained about the totalism inherent in the proposal of an integrated framework that speaks

with one voice (excluding others) (Calas & Smircich, 1987; Cooper & Burrell, 1988; Lyotard, 1979). A second issue, central to the challenge of PS, has been the assault on the idea of an autonomous subject. Against the essen- tialist idea of an integrated, coherent, homogeneous individual, PS theorists highlight the irrationality of values and seek to preserve fragmentation, inconsistency, undecidability, variation, and heterogeneity.

According to humanist theory, including humanist MOS and the radi- cal humanism of CT (Burrell & Morgan, 1979), it is assumed that beneath the alienated, fragmented surface of human consciousness there is an auton-

omous individual striving to come out.4 Or as Weedon (1988: 21, emphasis added) puts the argument, humanism "presupposes an essence at the heart of the individual which is unique, fixed and coherent." It is precisely this assumption that is challenged by PS. According to PS, subjectivity is the product of diverse and contradictory discourses and practices through which individuals are routinely identified, and identify themselves, as more or less autonomous subjects. For proponents of PS, "The individual is both the site for a possible range of subjectivity and, at any particular moment of

' The intellectual origins of humanism can be traced to the Enlightenment, when Man [sic], through the agency of reason, "postulated the human, as opposed to a divine, construction of the ideal" (Dawe, 1979: 375).

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 441

thought and speech, a subject, subjected to the regime of meaning of a

particular discourse and enabled to act accordingly" (Weedon, 1988: 34). As noted previously, humanistic MOS (Argyris, 1964; McGregor, 1960)

researchers are inclined to assume the existence of a fixed set of needs

which, when fulfilled by the employer, maximizes the individual's produc- tivity as well as his or her job satisfaction. Critical theorists, in contrast, reject the (bourgeois humanist) idea that the full expansion of human au-

tonomy can be accommodated within the constraints of capitalist work or-

ganizations. According to CT, the death of God is the beginning, not the end, of the humanist project. Although modern individuals have been freed from feudal illusions (e.g., the divine rights of Kings), they/we are ensnared by contemporary illusions-such as the idea that freedom is fully realized by the opportunity to sell labor, participate in representative democracy, and apply science to rationalize existing means of organization without regard for the rationality of ends (which, according to positivist science, lie

beyond the scope of rational evaluation, Habermas, 1971, 1972). To justify their critique of contemporary illusions and social unhappi-

ness, CT researchers have appealed to the idea that, at the core of individ- uals, is a (potentially) unified, rational autonomous subject-a subject that is currently alienated and degraded by the socially unnecessary demands

of capitalist work organizations. (In MOS, this thesis is paralleled by Mc- Gregor's [1960] opinion that the autonomous core of individuals can be freed by shifting from a Theory X to a Theory Y philosophy of management.) Marcuse (1955), for example, identified human instincts as a possible drive against the totalizing control of advanced society. At present, however, the cognitivist version of CT proposed by Habermas is dominant. In his recent work, Habermas (1984) argued that the idea of autonomy and solidarity is a

condition of every communicative act, however deceptive or distorted spe- cific acts may be. Central here is the anticipation in every speech act of a free dialogue in a nonauthoritarian society in which the potentials in lan-

guage for questioning, checking, and arguing are utilized. Habermas assumed that, in principle, knowledge can be cleansed of

power, and subjectivity emancipated, by achieving symmetry in its rela- tions. The poststructuralist, in contrast, contends that the true/false, alien-

ation/emancipation dichotomies are unsupportable. More specifically, Foucault (1980) has challenged the idea, central to CT, that the relationship between "knowledge" and "power" is purely negative and, relatedly, that the ideological aspects of the former can be eliminated by removing the latter. He argued that most, if not all, power relations incorporate elements that are positive for, and valued by, those populations whose subjectivity they constitute; moreover, any form of knowledge, however enlightened,

exerts truth effects that are potentially contradictory in their consequences. So, for example, the idea that human reason has emancipatory potential can produce a form of critical theory (namely, Critical Theory), which priv- ileges abstract theorizing and critiques over the fostering of critical insights into mundane philosophies and practices.

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

442 Academy of Management Review July

Turning away from grand critiques based upon the idea of society as a totality, Foucault focused attention on what he termed the microphysics of power, that is, power as exercised in the context of a complicated network of power relations and struggles rather than as a purely repressive mech- anism originating from a single unified source (such as capitalism, top man- agement, the state, the union, or even mass culture or consumptionist ide- ology). The principle value of this approach, we believe, resides in the theorists' capacity to appreciate the complex and precarious dynamics of social organization without reducing its messy and often paradoxical qual- ities to a product of an essential, predetermined cause. In turn, this orien- tation opens up the possibility of appreciating the frailty and vulnerability of processes which, from a totalizing perspective, appear inevitable and un- shakable. What, from a more distant or abstracted position, is too readily categorized and dismissed as an expression of "bourgeois ideology" or as a generator of "false consciousness" is appreciated as a more ambiguous phenomenon that, on closer examination, is contradictory in its formation and effects.

Negativism

The third complaint against CT concerns its negativism. Without deny- ing the importance of questioning conventional beliefs and assumptions-a major task of academic knowledge, which is seriously underrepresented in MOS-there is a tendency to one-sidedness in many critical projects (in- cluding some of our own works), a one-sidedness which, in some respects, parallels the one-dimensional technicism that dominates conventional management theory (Alvesson & Willmott, In press). The negativity of CT creates problems both (a) in terms of how the objects and subjects of critique are representated and (b) in terms of demonstrating the relevance of the researchers' concerns.

This negative aspect, in combination with the intellectualism and es- sentialism in CT, may account for its very marginal presence within and impact on MOS. Although this position is largely attributable to the domi- nance of values that are antithetic to those of CT, antagonism is fueled by blanket dismissals of the preoccupations of practitioners and of MOS re- searchers as well as the inaccessibility of the language employed within CT. Difficulty in publishing critical research, especially in the United States, means that the critical approach has been marginalized and silenced (Ca- las & Smircich, 1987). CT in management then hardly reaches a position from which "resistance" (and even less so, opposition) to mainstream man- agement and organization theory can be exercised. Though mainstream researchers and gatekeepers bear considerable responsibility for limited interest in reflections on the role of interests and ideology in knowledge production, proponents of CT (including the authors of this text) are also culpable when their arguments are unnecessarily one-sided, negative, and unconstructive.

CT is marginalized not only because it is critical of the assumptions on

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 443

which orthodox MOS is based but also because its researchers tend to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, which is fundamentally uncompassionate and, as a consequence, uncommunicative. It is uncommunicative because it is

perceived to simply "put down" conventional wisdom. Of course, conven- tional wisdom should not be spared critical examination, but there also must

be a willingness for critical researchers to communicate in ways that are understandable and, it is hoped, amenable to others. What often makes critical theorists' critiques unacceptable, we suspect, is that (a) they fail to acknowledge the benefits of conventional wisdom as perceived by those who are committed to it and (b) they are arrogant in the sense of taking for granted the authority of their criticism. CT is not cared about because it appears to be uncaring. Paradoxically, a reluctance of CT researchers to engage in a dialog with mainstream, technicist, objectivist, and promanage- rial researchers has contributed to its marginalization. Counter to its inten- tions, CT leaves the domination of the technocratic consciousness undis- turbed, thereby confirming and refueling its contempt for conventional MOS.

To translate this criticism into the terminology of CT, outright dismissals of managerial ideology are undialectical insofar as they disregard or mar- ginalize the contradictions and countertendencies within management phi- losophies. Because of the concentration on the differences between the contents of mainstream MOS theories and the emancipatory ideals of CT, the points they share are overlooked. There is a reluctance to recognize the most progressive potentialities in certain theories-for example, the con- temporary role of at least some of the neohuman relations and corporate

culture philosophies in problematizing some theory and practice concern- ing the widespread preference for an excessively narrow conception of rationality based on quantitative techniques of decision making: Excluded

from the design of work processes, they observe, is the productive contri- bution of irrational, intuitive, and idiosyncratic actions. Shared here is a concern for how a purely technical conception of rationality inhibits creativ- ity and exerts a deadening effect upon human organization. Shared, too, are the beliefs that people will respond positively to opportunities that en- able them to expand their discretion or autonomy, and when they do so, they are more likely to act responsibly toward others.

In our view, these potentially emancipatory elements within parts of the conventional literature should be more adequately acknowledged. Without disregarding their manipulatory and negative features, their more progres- sive aspects should be recognized and welcomed as a basis for exposing their ideological effects. Instead of simply dismissing such theories as so much managerial hocus-pocus, it is important to appreciate how their

power depends upon an ability to offer and provide a degree of emanci- pation, albeit circumscribed and contradictory, from the irrationalities of existing work processes. Insofar as opportunities for self-determination are promoted and facilitated, a central thesis of CT is to some extent confirmed: that an expansion of (behavioral) autonomy is possible without degenera- tion into anarchy.

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

444 Academy of Management Review July

At the same time, acknowledgment of these elements should not dis- tract attention from the very limited potential of, for example, corporate culture theory to expand human autonomy. Its impact in the reverse direc- tion-reduction of the opportunities for critical thought, rational self- clarification, and autonomy- is often more profound (Willmott, 1991b), and CT critique is here entirely relevant. The optimistic tone of neohuman rela- tions and corporate culture, its portrayal of (potentially) contradiction-free social relations and human conditions within the given (unquestioned) or- der, and its (equally taken-for-granted) ends merit sustained critical exam- ination from CT and PS.

A Rejoinder to the Critiques of CT

Having reviewed a number of criticisms of CT, primarily from PS but also from the position of conventional management theory and practice, we must add that these criticisms, in some cases, are a bit double-edged: Other forms of critical analysis, including PS, are not necessarily more innocent in terms of intellectualism, essentialism, and negativism.

A potential shortcoming of poststructuralists is their fascination with the ambiguous and comparatively open character of social processes, which becomes an end in itself, a focus that can deflect attention from the embed- dedness of such processes within a wider, historical context. As Dews (1986: 33) argued in defense of Critical Theory (and Habermas, in particular) against poststructuralist critique:

It is true that Habermas' work does not hold up a mirror to contemporary experiences of fragmentation, loss of identity, and libidinal release, in the manner which has enabled post- structuralist writing to provide the "natural" descriptive vocab- ulary.... But neither does it pay for its expressive adequacy and immediacy with a lack of theoretical and historical prospec- tive.

Although this rebuttal of poststructuralism is more relevant for the ar- guments of Lyotard (1984) and many authors more interested in deconstruc- tion than the analyses of Foucault, it nevertheless is important to direct attention to the esoteric and unconstructive features of poststructuralists' criticism of Critical Theory. Work that emphasizes the open, ambiguous character of language and devotes attention to the precarious nature of writings and texts easily lends itself to an exclusive, intellectual, intrascien- tific enterprise. In terms of accessibility and constructive critique, it is not necessarily an improvement upon CT. In fact, the negativity of CT (more so in the earlier versions than in Habermas) to contemporary society and its institutions is paralleled in poststructuralists' negativity to what is referred to as grand narratives (i.e., all forms of large-scale frameworks and projects, including the idea of a progressive development, which are said to be totalitarian) (Lyotard, 1979). (On this particular point PS harbors its own

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 445

essentialism, in which all sorts of grand narratives, except its own, are viewed as essentially totalitarian, in an indiscriminate way [cf. Kellner, 1988].) It is arguable that the progressive ideals associated with the eman- cipatory project make the mixture of positive/constructive and negative/ critical (and deconstructive) elements in CT less alien to practitioners and MOS than the more consistently "uncommitted" position of PS.

Foucault cannot be accused of being esoteric and intellectualistic. But neither does he leave his readers in an optimistic state concerning the chances for liberation. As Hoy (1986) pointed out, some interpreters view Foucault as writing a story of "the Rise of Unfreedom." For Foucault, disci- plinary power lurks everywhere, also behind seemingly humanistic inten- tions and arrangements. Rorty (1985: 172) remarked that Foucault "forbids

himself the tone of the liberal sort of thinker who says to his fellow-citizens:

'We know that there must be a better way to do things than this; let us look for it together.' " To counter this objection, it is relevant to insert a quotation from Foucault, which was generated by a (rarely expressed) impatience with critiques that rely upon essentialist assumptions of utopian schemes rather than engaging more directly in analysis of the microphysics of mod- ern institutions:

It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to critique the working of institutions which appear to be both neutral and independent, to criticise them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself ob- scurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight them. (Foucault in Elders, 1974: 171, cited in Rabinow, 1986: 6)

Even though we want to mobilize Foucault's writing in a project basi- cally positive to emancipation, we realize that his ideas are not without

ambiguity in this enterprise. This ambiguity is both a strength and a weak- ness. It is a strength because it injects a healthy dose of skepticism into the heady, intellectualistic realms of CT (as well as into the naive optimism of MOS). In particular, Foucault's contribution to PS has been to demonstrate the possibility of undertaking genealogical analyses of mundane processes and institutions (e.g., prisons and prison-like organizations) in a way that casts new light on their oppressive consequences and, thereby, contributes to a critique of these practices. But it is also a weakness because Foucault's

position lacks any consistent normative orientations. Of course, for some, this weakness is a strength because, in principle, it inhibits the elevation of Foucault into an authority (although the current fascination for his work would seem to belie such an effect).

Summary and a Brief "Confirmative" Response to the Critique

To sum up, critical theorists are not alone in being guilty of intellectu- alism, essentialism, and negativism. What these slightly pejoratory labels point to can also be described in more celebratory terms, which acknowl- edge the well-meaning intent that underpins the CT project. Nonetheless,

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

446 Academy of Management Review July

these features of CT must be corrected if it is to have greater relevance for

actors in ordinary organizational settings. In our opinion, this does not ne- cessitate the jettisoning of the idea of emancipation as a guiding value of analysis. On the contrary, the idea of emancipation must be retained and reconstructed if social science is not to become a nihilistic enterprise in which the generation of knowledge is completely divorced from the values that inspire and guide its production. Even if the idea of emancipation cannot be justified by appealing to rationality as a universal, it can be defended pragmatically by appealing to values that resonate with its con- cerns (Rorty, 1989).

A slackening of interest in grand critique facilitates an expansion of interest in the critical analysis of ordinary, everyday power relations and

struggles. To paraphrase Geertz (1973), who argued that the (anthropolog- ical) concept of culture should be cut down in size so that it covers less and reveals more, the concept of intellectual emancipation should in a similar

fashion be cut down in size in a way that allows it to tell a story that avoids too grandiose claims and, thereby, provides more space for other consid- erations and ideals (ranging from technical problem solving to the securing of tradition and identity) in a way that acknowledges the limited, but still vital, place of the idea of emancipation in human affairs.

RECONCEPTUALIZING EMANCIPATION

Microemancipation

Our engagement with poststructuralist critiques of the "strong" pro- gram of Critical Theory leads us to emphasize microemancipation, in which attention is focused on concrete activities, forms, and techniques that offer themselves not only as means of control, but also as objects and facilitators of resistance and, thus, as vehicles for liberation. In this formulation, pro- cesses of emancipation are understood to be uncertain, contradictory, am- biguous, and precarious. Where power techniques are in operation, "loop- holes" can be found. The idea of microemancipation is to search for such loopholes in managerial and organizational control that arise from the con- tradictory character of power techniques and their ideological reproduc- tion. As Deetz (1992a: 336) expressed it, "With every 'positive' move in dis- ciplinary practices, there is an oppositional one." Control is conceptualized not only as discipline and restriction of the space for action, but also as a

potential source of critical thought and emancipation. All sorts of control efforts are understood to bring along signs or messages that can trigger

suspicion, resistance, and critical reflections (i.e., emancipatory impulses). Of course, the dialectic of control and resistance has been treated by

several authors (e.g., Edwards, 1979), but mainly as a succession of conflicts between major, integrated managerial control strategies and large-scale or aggregates of similar small-scale reactions to these control forms. What we emphasize is the relevance and significance of another level and another type of emancipatory action, which is less visible and less grandiose. For

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 447

example, it might be the redefinition of a verbal symbol launched by man- agement for a particular purpose: Instead of being a vehicle for managerial control and integration, the symbol becomes a manifestation of irony and distance (e.g., Smircich, 1983). Similarly, status symbols such as office space, luxury equipment, controlled access to privileged areas, and so forth, often reinforce formal hierarchy and feelings of superiority/inferiority and support careerism; these also may draw attention to the arbitrariness and political nature of corporate arrangements, thus leading to skepticism rather than tighter discipline (Kunda, 1991).

Inherent in the concept of microemancipation is an emphasis on par- tial, temporary movements that break away from diverse forms of oppres- sion, rather than successive moves toward a predetermined state of liber- ation. This micro view of emancipation differs markedly from the traditional conception of a one-way transformation of consciousness from "false" to "true" as the crucial element in the change from an oppressive social order to one that is in harmony with clarified wants and ethical principles. In our view, this view is consistent with critical theorists who have been consis- tently skeptical about the more grandiose claims of orthodox Marxism. The

critical project is thus formulated as a precarious, endless enterprise; its

believers fight continuously in order to create more space for critical reflec- tion and to counteract the effects of traditions, prejudices, the ego adminis- tration of mass media, and so forth, which reduce the ways in which the

social world can be understood and enacted (cf. Deetz, 1992a,b). It portrays the emancipatory idea not as one large, tightly integrated project, but rather as a group of projects, each limited in terms of space, time, and success.

The Costs and Paradoxes of Emancipation

Emancipation is seen as an element in struggles between the exercise of power and reactions to power techniques. It is important to recognize that

power involves, apart from a possible starting point for emancipation, sub- ordination as well as the expansion of productive capacities. Emancipation might involve a loss of gross productive capacities. For example, women emancipating themselves from dominant socialization patterns and gender roles may reduce their interest in, and capacity for, caring. Employees freeing themselves from a Protestant work ideology may be less committed to and less capable of acting as socially responsible citizens. More gener-

ally, a critical questioning of beliefs and values might not only facilitate more rational thinking, recognition and clarification of neglected needs, ideas about fairness, and so on, but, in doing so, may estrange the indi- vidual from the tradition that has formed his or her very subjectivity. Anx- iety, identity loss, and other severe problems might follow (Fay, 1987).

The costs of emancipation must be acknowledged, especially in critical studies of management and organization where present knowledge about effective and productive organizing can come into conflict with unrestricted emancipatory thinking. The price that has to be paid for many forms of

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

448 Academy of Management Review July

liberation from dominant ideologies and external constraints may be high. For example, enhanced ecological consciousness and greater freedom and

creativity at work- likely priorities emerging from emancipatory change may result in bankruptcy and unemployment. The assumption that only irrationality, apart from the repressive power of an egoistic social elite, stands in the way of liberation, is far too simplistic. Emancipation will in- volve a trade-off between certain gains and certain losses. People might have persuasive reasons for refusing emancipatory invitations, including

both fear of failure and fear of the effects of successful emancipation. Simply paying attention to certain aspects of management and orga-

nization inevitably means that complex phenomena are selectively repre-

sented and illuminated, which easily creates a closed and fixed appear-

ance of an open and ambiguous phenomenon. An antiemancipatory po- tential runs through all projects, even those with the best intentions and preceded by careful reflection. The dynamics and dialectics of emancipa- tion mean that an idea, or an intended practice, can be subverted in its

practical application. Even if it begins by opening up understanding or

facilitating reflection, it can end up locking people into a certain, fixed, unreflective thinking (Willmott, 1991a). Critique and liberation from old dog- mas is then followed by new dogmas: Somewhere in the process a theory

guided by critical, emancipatory intent turns into an antiemancipatory force (cf. Horkheimer & Adorno's [ 1947] critique of the dialectics of enlightenment). The dark side of CT's emancipatory project must be acknowledged. Having said that, we must also resist defeatism. It may be acknowledged that Hab- ermas's (1984) ideas on communicative action and reflective dialogue, for example, contain potentially antiemancipatory elements (i.e., an intellec- tualist ideology that stresses cognitive capacity and communicative skills as core values and offers a "total" framework [and thereby possibly excluding other voices] and arguably a pro-male bias [Meisenhelder, 1989]). But, on the whole, it would be fair to say that few, if any, socially and politically relevant theories or frameworks run so small a risk of turning into a totali- tarian, antiemancipatory force.

The general point about the equivocality of theory has particular rele- vance for humanistic management and organization theory and practice. Awareness of the antiemancipatory elements in all good suggestions and prescriptions encourages deeper reflection of how seemingly humanistic ideas lend themselves to ideological usage. By considering antiemancipa- tory as well as emancipatory dimensions and potentials of humanistic man- agement theory, some authors might be taken less seriously and less widely (and superficially) read, and it would improve the likelihood of the net result of the work being more in accordance with its stated intent.

A Note on Emancipation Myopia

Having argued for the virtues of emancipatory microprojects as well as

the ambiguities of emancipation (irrespective of scope and intention), we must warn against an overreliance on local projects of emancipation. To

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 449

reduce the emancipatory project to struggles around local practices might

leave virtually undisturbed the vital sources of oppression associated with

the laws and principles of capitalism, historically and culturally anchored

gender stereotypes, and the domination of professional and managerial ideologies. Efforts to make space for increased discretion and autonomy on the purely local level may lead to a narrow kind of liberation in which local

difficulties are (temporarily) ameliorated, but the deeper, structural prob- lems mainly escape attention and correction.

Instead of understanding organizations as sites for emancipation only

as a tightly integrated chain of institutions operating according to the logic of the iron cage, as Critical Theorists do, or as a setting in which fragmen- tary, uncoupled forms of micropower and local struggles are at play, as poststructuralists do, researchers could view organizations as loosely cou- pled orders harboring elements of oppression, that is, opportunities for emancipation that are to varying degrees connected to or are the products of a macrocontext. Within the context of MOS, the localized analysis is perhaps most relevant, but an emphasis on this should be accompanied with an understanding of the larger setting of local struggles. Acknowledg-

ing the significance of micropower and the problems of totalizing frame- works should not lead to a neglect or denial of the historical and macroso- cial conditions of management and organizational practice. We are not prepared to trade totalizing thinking for myopia.

EMANCIPATION: TYPES AND FOCUSES

To elaborate our reconceptualization of emancipation further, it is nec- essary to develop a more refined understanding of the nature and object of emancipatory efforts. To this end, a distinction can be drawn between the type of emancipatory project and the focus of its interest. As with many such

distinctions, its value is heuristic: In practice the different types and foci of emancipation merge into one another. Nonetheless, this heuristic provides a point of departure and offers a stimulus for developing a more adequate conceptualization of some key dimensions of emancipatory projects.

On the first dimension we distinguish a questioning from a utopian type of emancipatory project. The first involves the challenging and critiquing of

FIGURE 1

A Matrix Summarizing the Types and Foci of Emancipation

Type of ematncipattory project Questioning Incrementatl Utopiatn

Foci of emancipatory intent

Means

Social relations

Ends

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

450 Academy of Management Review July

dominant forms of thinking. Existing thinking and social arrangements are met by suspicion and are scrutinized. The aim is to combat the self-evident and the taken-for-granted. This kind of project is primarily concerned with investigating and problematizing. It strives to challenge and resist authority

(and its disciplining effects) without proposing an alternative agenda or set of prescriptions. In contrast, another type anticipates a utopian state or an overall "vision," which avoids or minimizes the current problems. Perhaps, it should be stressed that the utopian element is not a matter of providing a recipe for the good life or fixing the mind in a narrowly specified direction.

CT is antiauthoritarian and aims only to counteract ideologies and social arrangements that obstruct human freedom, not filling the latter with par- ticular contents. The utopian element emerges when the current conditions are confronted with a new form of ideal, which aims at opening up con- sciousness for engagement with a broader repertoire of alternatives. Uto- pianism then represents alternative thinking rather than the suggestion of a ready-made, better alternative or the providing of courses for action. Be- tween these types, we identify projects that favor and articulate an incre- mental or reformistic type of emancipation, in which liberation from certain

forms of oppression is indicated. These types often concentrate on partici- patory processes. Of course, questioning and incremental approaches often involve a utopian element. A critique implicitly assumes a possible superior state or emancipatory change of direction. Some proponents of PS might object to this idea. But in many cases ideas about deconstruction are influ- enced by an alternative set of ideas, which "drives" their efforts in a certain direction. Authors who draw on ideas about deconstruction as well as fem- inism are an example (e.g., Martin, 1990).

At this point we consider the focus or the primary object of emancipa- tory efforts. Here we make an analytical distinction among means, social

relations, and ends. Again, it is necessary to acknowledge the purely heu- ristic quality of this distinction. Means refer to discourses and practices that

are valued for their supposed ability to make ends achievable. Emancipa- tory projects that address means challenge the necessity and value of es- tablished methods of organization, such as the hierarchical and fragmented

division of labor, certain leadership styles, or technocratic modes of control that have been questioned by humanistic as well as radical analyses. Ends refer to the purpose of organizational or managerial activity. The emanci- pation of ends is concerned with unfreezing institutionalized priorities and, thereby, opening up debate about the practical value of economic growth, consumption, the quality of life and so on. Finally, the inclusion of social relations as a focus draws attention to distributions of equalities/inequalities in terms of privileges and power. Of course, social relations cannot be divorced from either means or ends. But the focus on social relations moves

beyond the overall ends that dominate the organizations and the particular

means utilized for achieving these ends. Means such as participatory styles of coordinating work for the attainment of goals (e.g., ecologically sound production) do not necessarily touch upon issues like segmented labor mar-

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 451

kets, pay differences, or other forms of class, gender, or race inequalities. Emancipation directed against oppressive means and taken-for-granted ends does not empty the prospects for emancipation. Similarly, it is possible to imagine relatively successful emancipation that is directed at social re- lations (e.g., reduced power asymmetries) but that does not affect ends and means. Workplace democracy, for example, does not necessarily exclude high productivity as a taken-for-granted goal or an extensive division of labor as the appropriate means. A focus on social relations serves to high- light the ways in which the selection of particular means may be consistent with the ends to which they are directed-the use of bureaucratic means to achieve democratic ends is an obvious example. In the workplace, "pro- gressive," humanistic methods of organizing work are not necessarily or unproblematically emancipatory, even in an incremental way, despite their provision of better working conditions, reduced use of rules, and expansion of discretion. Not only may such reforms make little contribution to self- determination within a division of labor governed and preserved by in- equalities of class, gender, and race, but, as noted previously, it is ques- tionable whether this kind of reform will facilitate a change in practical consciousness in the direction of increased self-determination.

Figures such as the matrix in the preceding section do not mirror the intentions of people who are engaged in emancipatory projects. Rather, the figure presents a framework for guiding critical reflection on the character and scope of the discourses and practices that comprise MOS. Limitations of space prevent us from discussing the diverse ways in which the dimensions

of emancipation are articulated within particular discourses and practices. We will illustrate only how the matrix can illuminate the content of theories.

We start from the three foci and briefly explore types of emancipatory pro- jects in relationship to these.

The primary object of study in MOS is means. Mainstream MOS is preoccupied with means in a purely technical, nonemancipatory fashion. Sociotechnical and QWL movements and some versions of corporate cul- ture often express aspirations to be emancipatory. However, an instrumen- tal rationality tends to dominate their actions. Such approaches are prob- lematic in relationship to less compromised ideas about emancipation (Alvesson, 1987). The emancipatory potential is, however, worth noting. In terms of type, their position is incremental, whereas the questioning and

utopian elements are weak. When it comes to emancipatory projects aiming at changing social

relations there is greater variety in terms of the type emphasized. Some contributions to participation are, like most means-focusing research, also incrementally oriented, but they incorporate a more ambitious interest in modifying social relations (e.g., Gustavsen, 1985). Typically, the interest lies in facilitating workplace democracy, often through action research and sometimes in collaboration with unions (Sandberg, 1981). Most Marxist- inspired approaches (e.g., Braverman, 1974; Clegg & Dunkerley, 1980) con- ceptualize emancipation as a matter of radically changing social relations.

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

452 Academy of Management Review July

Their emphasis is typically utopian (and often questioning). They push for a classless society in which work is coordinated based on consensual social relations.

We can contrast this focus with authors who are suspicious of the wis- dom of assuming the unequivocal value of pursuing dominating ends. CT- inspired authors and other radical humanists normally challenge these ideas and are more interested in the realization of somewhat abstract goals, such as human freedom, creativity, and rational dialogue. They are gen- erally concerned with ideology critique (e.g., the critique of scien- tism), with a rather pure questioning orientation (Alvesson, 1987; Mumby, 1988). Sometimes there is an interest in more incremental projects, such as Habermas's (1984) ideas on undistorted communication and, based on that, include suggestions for improved professional practices such as in planning (Forester, 1989) and utopian ones, like Schumacher's (1974) ideas on small- scale, ethical production or Burrell and Morgan's (1979) antiorganization theory.

As we argued previously, it is virtually impossible to maintain a hard and fast distinction between truly emancipatory discourse and practice in which the objective is strong yet flexible, and falsely emancipatory dis- course and practice, which is more dubious and deceptive. However, al- though we are skeptical about the possibility and value of "purist" formu- lations of CT and, therefore, open for the possibility that emancipatory and deceptive elements might go together, we believe that it is important to foster an approach that facilitates efforts to define (theoretically and practi- cally) a space between orthodox CT and humanistic MOS. It is especially important to resist the equation of micro-emancipation with (pseudo)hu- manistic versions of MOS, which promise full integration of human needs and dominating bureaucratic ideals, thereby devaluing if not denying the emancipatory impulse as it contributes to manipulative forms of practice and obscures contradictions.

When reflecting upon the emancipatory potential of discourse and practice, researchers' efforts should not be restricted to the narrow space covered by only one of the boxes in Figure 1. Emancipation, even in a macroversion, should encourage thinking and acting that transcend a sin- gular type or focus, whether it is means, social relations or ends, or ques- tioning, incrementalism, or utopianism. A narrow targeting of a specific space within the matrix of Figure 1 fragments and subverts the idea of emancipation, which is to open up, challenge and transcend constraints. In this case, it might be understood that we are arguing for a holistic version of emancipation. As we argued previously, we do not see this as the pri- mary task within the context of management and organization theory. Com- batting a narrow targeting of emancipation, which means that this label becomes inappropriate, does not necessarily lead to grand critique. Again, it is the space in between that we are seeking to open up.

The argument against restricting the project of emancipation to only one focus or type does not strike solely against grand versions of improve-

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 453

ment and liberation. Even though it is insufficient in emancipatory projects to exclude the more mundane levels of incremental change and of means-

and, thereby, the concerns of organizational participants-it is also unsat- isfactory to improve means without critically considering the wider context

of social relations or alternative ends. Without the latter, we can hardly talk about emancipation. Many (most?) forms of organizational development and neohuman relations are disqualified (Alvesson, 1987). So are ideas about women in management and other issues of gender equality when they are reduced to social relations associated with equal access to career

possibilities, without any consideration of the more profound relationship between gender relations and organizational arrangements and goals (Alvesson & Billing, 1992; Ferguson, 1984). Such a constrained and con- straining view of gender relations falls well short of the ideal of emancipa- tion: Emancipation is incompatible with any effort at improvement that di- rects attention to a very narrow target and away from the social context in which it is produced. Certainly, the idea of emancipation as myriad small- scale projects concentrates efforts on local problems and possibilities. But, in so doing, attention is paid to the social context and a view of the social macro-order as given and unproblematical is challenged.

Finally, we stress that recognition of the historical context of particular organizational and managerial manifestations is relevant. Emancipatory discourses and practice simply cannot be adequately developed without consideration of macrolevel ideas, ideologies, class, race and gender struc- tures, economic principles and laws, and so forth, that organize the world

of organization and management. Taking the idea of emancipation seri- ously (even when it is revised along the lines suggested here) does not leave the social totality unexamined, taken for granted, or undisturbed.

REORIENTING EMANCIPATORY STUDIES

So far, we have argued that the problems exposed by the critiques of Critical Theory invite a reformulation of the idea of emancipation in social science in general, and in management and organization studies in par- ticular. An important element in such a project is the development of a new research strategy in which a "strong version" of Critical Theory (including its promises of fulfilling an emancipatory project of freeing people from frozen social relations) is suspended in favor of an eclectic framework, which in- cludes perspectives/voices other than CT. The abstract, totalizing attack on the prevalent social order (late capitalism, class society, etc.) or another larger entity (management ideology, distorted communication, etc.) is set aside as space is made for analysis that draws attention to aspects of re- search objects that are unexplored within a purist formulation of CT.

Given the critique and suggestions made in the preceding sections, what research strategy might be fruitful? In response to this question, the purpose of this section is to point out some ways in which a new version of CT can be materialized. Again, limitations of space place restrictions on the scope of our discussion. Here we concentrate on the contribution of aca-

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

454 Academy of Management Review July

demic emancipatory discourse and practice by considering (a) the value of ethnography for emancipatory studies, (b) a new approach to writing and the transmission of ideas, and (c) new modes of reading in the interpretation of ideas. We examine the conduct of researchers, the act of writing research and scholarship, and the assessment and reinterpretation of other (e.g., conventional) texts. We recognize that these proposals are neither compre- hensive nor are they without precedent. Our purpose is not to recommend novelty as an end in itself but to highlight possibilities for reclaiming and reaccenting the idea of emancipation in the theory and practice of man- agement and organization.

Listening to People

Letting people in organizations speak for themselves by conducting ethnographic studies is a vital means of moderating "totalizing" accounts of management and organization. Ethnography is a research process in which the researcher "closely observes, records, and engages in the daily life of another culture . .. and then writes accounts of this culture, empha- sizing descriptive detail" (Marcus & Fischer, 1986: 18). In ethnography, the researcher is not just interested in behavior and structures, but also, and quite often more so, he or she is interested in symbols and meanings (Rosen, 1991). Researchers of critical ethnography accommodate and take more seriously the complexity, ambiguity, and inconsistency of people's dis- course and practice, without falling into the empiricist trap of naturalizing the ideology, power, and communicative distortions (including the ambi- guity of language) that are an integral part of management and organiza- tion. In opposition to those using interpretive ethnography, researchers us- ing the critical version are sensitive to how meanings may carry privileged interests (Deetz, 1992a). A challenge for the critical ethnographer is to si- multaneously concentrate on local actors' meanings, symbols, and values; to place these within a wider political, economic, and historic framework; and to prevent such a framework from pressing the material into a partic- ular theory and language (a dominating voice), thus obscuring the ambi- guities and variations of the empirical situation and the multiple ways in which it can be accounted for. The trick for the researcher is to be sensitive to all three elements and to avoid ignorance as well as hypersensitivity. Multiple voices is one slogan, but not all voices can speak at the same time, nor are all equally important to raise.

Creating space for pro- as well as antimanagement voices in the same text can be suggested as a part of a less heady emancipatory project. In-depth interviews are more likely to provide insights into how organiza- tional members can hold both affirmative and critical opinions about a particular organization and how it is managed. The ethnographer's role is then one of "uncovering, reading, and making visible to others the critical perspectives and possibilities for alternatives that exist in the lives of his subjects" (Marcus & Fischer, 1986: 133).

Such a proposal is not entirely novel. There are now a number of

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 455

examples of ethnographic-type studies of organizational work that have been informed by a broadly critical standpoint (e.g., Filby & Willmott, 1988; Knights & Collinson, 1987; Rosen, 1985). These studies have demonstrated the potential for applying CT in order to illuminate and challenge the op-

pressive and self-defeating features of modern organizations. Critique is made concrete through the presentation and analysis of empirical data. Instead of using or reducing an extract from an interview transcript to illus- trate or confirm a grand theory, critique is performed often in an eclectic fashion, in order for the theorist to interpret the data in ways that are be- lieved to carry emancipatory resonances for the reader.

However, these studies depart somewhat from the approach we advo- cate insofar as the negative, self-defeating aspects of organizational work are stressed without the authors' fully acknowledging or exploring the more positive, productive features. Such an objective has been necessary and valuable as a corrective to mainstream, functionalist accounts of manage- ment and organization in which the negative aspects are either undis- closed, naturalized, or explained away by authors' interpreting them as symptomatic of individual managerial incompetence. But, there is also a

danger of critical ethnographies alienating readers who, potentially, are open to their insights. Too often, the effect is not to unsettle existing precon- ceptions and dogmas but to convey a sense of self-righteousness and su-

periority which seems, paradoxically, to be dismissive of, or to poke fun at, the dilemmas and struggles of the people whose practices are the targets of critique. Of course, critical analysis demands a deflation of pretensions, including the (self)deceptions of those who occupy positions of relative power and advantage. But users of CT must also be sensitive to the accom- plishments of those in power, and in particular relate such pretensions to the historical and existential conditions within which their subjectivity is consti- tuted (Knights & Willmott, 1989). Otherwise, the critique is too readily inter-

preted and dismissed as one-sided and negative and, thus, becomes self- defeating in its mission to communicate the value of emancipatory change.

One possibility is to undertake ethnographic studies that proceed from, and include, not only different critical perspectives, but a combination of

"critical" and "noncritical" (e.g., managerial) perspectives, paying atten- tion to the needs for liberation as well as the value of the efficient manage- ment of concrete organizational problems under contemporary conditions and restrictions. By addressing conflicts and contradictions as well as con- sensual matters, such an approach would be more novel and comprise a possibility for reducing the gap between CT and conventional MOS.

New Styles of Writing

The development of an empirically grounded, more accessible form of CT-inspired research can also be facilitated by new styles of writing. Cur- rent ideas about writing and experimenting might provide valuable sources of inspiration for CT researchers, but for reason of space we do not describe these (e. g., Calas & Smircich, 1991; Clifford & Marcus, 1986; Jeffcutt, 1991;

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

456 Academy of Management Review July

Marcus & Fischer, 1986). To some extent this article, which encompasses three positions, illustrates the possibility of developing texts that are com-

mitted to a less abstract, intellectualistic, and negative view of emancipa- tion.

A more general idea is to alternate between practitioner-friendly and critical-emancipatory textual elements. Such alternation can be more or less frequent, and the critical voice can be more or less salient. Given the traditional understanding of MOS as not being primarily in the business of emancipation, one could imagine a supplementary (or opposite) role of CT in writings typically concerned with traditional topics. Emancipation can reside in the wings, taking center stage in a text only when there is some- thing of direct importance to say. Instead of focusing strongly on emanci-

pation and critique in the overall approach, more muted and limited ex- pressions of these impulses would be presented. Perhaps, critical reflection is more likely when, instead of providing a definitive, seemingly devastat- ing critique of conventional wisdom, more explorations of (and scope for) competing interpretations are allowed and encouraged. Through critical

signaling (using sentences or portions of texts that point to problems through the use of particular words, such as capitalism, male domination, manip-

ulation, distorted communication, repression, etc.), suspicion and critical reflection are stimulated. Emancipation would be encouraged by drawing the reader's attention to particular issues in portions of a text, rather than by

presenting the full critical story or complete writing within a critical dis- course. The ideal of emancipation then enters in the form of interruptions or asides in the text.

Another important issue in terms of writing concerns self-reflection.

Wherever possible, the text should stimulate reflection not only on the object of critique but also on the authority of the critique. Of course, this point is relevant not only for CT, but also for all writings (and not least those of mainstream MOS). The dangers associated with an exchange of the au- thority of one account for the authority of another must be recognized and reduced, if not eliminated. If the selection and interpretation of the material illuminates problems and tensions that are widely encountered and strug- gled with, then perhaps it is less likely that the account will be stored as another nugget of knowledge rather than applied, through a process of critical self-reflection, in order to illuminate and, to some degree, transform practice.5

5 The banking concept of knowledge is drawn from Freire (1972). It is a notion that directly

echoes Horkheimer's (1937: 222) critique of the Cartesian understanding of knowledge, in which

the "essential unchangeableness between subject, theory, and object" is assumed. The idea

that all forms of knowledge can be subjected to a "banking" mentality also serves to expose the limitations of Habermas's notion of critique, which (as he has been obliged to concede) allows, if it does not actively encourage, the "banking" of its own insights rather than stimulating their

application through a process of critical self-reflection on practical experience (Habermas,

1982: 233). The intent of Habermas's writing has been in the direction of totalizing critiques of

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 457

Sometimes a text that is written with another kind of intention can be reinterpreted to assume a more emancipation-oriented character.6 An ex-

ample is Pondy's discussion of myths and metaphors. He believes that these are important because "they place explanation beyond doubt and argu- mentation.... In myth, the ordinary rules of logic are suspended, anomaly and contradiction can be resolved within the mythical explanation" (1983: 163). Therefore, myths and metaphors fulfill important functions.

Here Pondy makes a point that parallels the deconstructionist argu- ments of poststructuralists who seek to reveal how a sense of closure is accomplished by a text. In this case, closure is achieved through the use of metaphors and myths that effectively neutralize alternative, and potentially disruptive, accounts of the organizational reality. From the standpoint of

CT, the presence of myths is oppressive when they frustrate reflection and thereby inhibit emancipatory change. However, from Pondy's managerial- ist standpoint, myths are uncritically embraced on the grounds that "atten- tion to symbolic aspects is necessary for the effective management of orga-

nizations" (1983: 163). Although emancipation presupposes doubt, and is encouraged by

anomaly and contradiction, Pondy's observations have an antiemancipa- tory interest. The article would have encouraged the reverse kind of think- ing if, instead, it had incorporated the understanding that critical attention to symbolic aspects is necessary for discovery of anomaly and contradic- tion, and-through that-the development of critical reflection among or- ganizational participants.

This conclusion is fully consistent with Pondy's argument that myths and symbols obscure contradictions, but it triggers ideas and thoughts in an other, emancipatory, direction. Another possibility would, of course, be to present both types of conclusion or to make alternative and parallel read- ings and interpretations of a particular phenomenon. In such a case, a distinct critical-emancipatory interpretation could then follow, or be fol- lowed by, other kinds of readings without any compulsion to integrate the

different readings. Creating a series of tensions and (precarious) resolutions within a text can make it more stimulating and enjoyable.

Looking for Emancipatory Elements in Texts

A third illustration of how a reconstructed concept of emancipation can be applied is in the reading of texts. As noted previously, users of orthodox Critical Theory are inclined to be dismissive of ideas that are intended to enhance the capacity of managers to raise the productivity of labor (such as

modern society and transcendental defences of the basis of such critiques rather than the

development of methodologies for illuminating mundane practices in ways that are found to be

rich in their emancipatory consequences for their participants. Some authors have, however,

drawn upon Habermas's ideas in this direction (e.g., Forester, 1983, 1989; Gustavsen, 1985). 6 Of course, we recognize that intentions are always ascribed (by authors or their readers)

by mobilizing those interpretive schemes that are deemed to be more plausible or persuasive

within particular (interpreted) contexts (Shotter & Gergen, 1989).

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

458 Academy of Management Review July

Taylor's scientific management, human relations, and corporate culture).

On the rare occasions when these ideas are considered by critical theorists, the focus is placed on their manipulative features without giving much

attention to their (limited) progressive qualities or the contradictory conse-

quences of their application (Alvesson, 1987; Fischer, 1984; Marcuse, 1964).

Yet, similar to humanistic management theory (e.g., McGregor, 1960; Weisbord, 1987), the corporate culture literature (Kanter, 1983; Peters & Wa-

terman, 1982) and Critical Theory challenge the adequacy of theories that reduce human nature to a more or less sophisticated form of economic rationality. In each case, the application of a predominantly technical, uni-

versal conception of rationality is recognized to inhibit creativity and to exert

a generally depressing effect on morale. By acknowledging employees' creative capacities, and by expanding opportunities for them to respond to

situations in an innovative and "responsible" way, progressive manage-

ment theory prescribes the replacement of rigid rules and procedures with an approach that allows flexibility and innovation within the parameters set by a few core values.

The basic argument of corporate culture writers is that improved cor- porate performance can be achieved by encouruging employees to identify

with, and internalize, a limited number of superordinate corporate values:

Let us suppose that we were asked for one all-purpose bit of advice for management, one truth that we were able to dis- till.... We might be tempted to reply, "Figure out your value system. Decide what your company stands for. What does your enterprise do that gives everyone the most pride?" (Peters & Waterman, 1982: 279)

It is not difficult to appreciate how such prescriptions can be interpreted

as manipulative and ideological (Willmott, 199 lb). Managers are being ad- vised (a) to commit resources to defining and promoting a definition of the nature and purpose of their company and (b) to exploit their employees' desire for social recognition and meaning by producing an image that compensates for a lack of self-esteem and meaningful work. Deal and Kennedy (1982: 16) provided a more concrete illustration of this ideal:

A strong culture enables people to feel better about what they do. .. . When a sales representative can say "I'm with IBM," rather than "I peddle typewriters for a living," he will probably hear in response: "Oh, IBM is a great company isn't it?" He quickly figures out he belongs to an outstanding company with a strong identity. For most people, that means a great deal. The next time they have the choice of working an extra half hour or sloughing off, they'll probably work.

Again, it is not difficult to see how the insecurity of individuals is being

exploited by marketing a corporate image to employees (as well as custom- ers) in a way that encourages them to reduce their insecurity by identifying more closely with the superordinate values of the company for which they

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 459

work. However, in the process, employees are invited to question the ne- cessity and value of many established forms of organizational control. It is stressed that people are more complex and have greater potential than is generally attributed to them (Deal & Kennedy, 1982, Chapter 3). According to the gurus of corporate culture, the goal is not simply to train or control

people to work accurately and productively on the job which they are cur- rently doing, but to regard their work as an opportunity for applying and developing their ability to innovate and to exercise their discretion. Within the boundaries defined by the culture (and here is the rub for Critical The-

ory), "people are encouraged to stick out, to innovate" (Peters & Waterman, 1982: 106).

It is rather easy to expose the limitations and antiemancipatory im-

pulses of such a philosophy. The chief objection is that, in implementing this philosophy, corporations become more illiberal, if not totalitarian, institu- tions in which there is no tolerance of employees who question their sacred values (Soeters, 1986; Willmott, 1991b): "You either buy into their values or

get out" (Peters & Waterman, 1982: 77). Certainly, corporations remain shackled to the task of achieving profitable growth to which the strength- ening of corporate culture is currently perceived to be a relevant means. Yet, their attentiveness to the innovative and creative potential of employees also opens up opportunities for human growth, albeit distorted by corporate demands, which other philosophies of management control deny. In prin- ciple, the corporate culture enables employees to expand, albeit within well-defined limits, their sphere of "objective" autonomy and responsibility and, in doing so, constitutes subjects whose sights about the quality of their working lives are continuously raised by the expectations that the corpora- tion instills into them.

Gains, however small in terms of increased discretion and improved job satisfaction should be appreciated as such, and they should not be measured exclusively against utopian visions of autonomy, creativity, and democracy-visions that have little meaning for the everyday life experi- ences and struggles of most organizational participants. This aspect should not be disregarded or dismissed when drawing attention to the more sinister and oppressive features of the corporate culture philosophy. Instead of sim- ply rejecting the thesis that "autonomy is the product of discipline" as au- thoritarian and/or managerial, it is possible to acknowledge that the devel-

opment of autonomy is impeded by insecurity and uncertainty without ac- cepting that the discipline provided, or imposed, by corporate culture is consistent with autonomy in the sense of collective self-determination.

To be clear, we are not saying that the corporate culture approach qualifies as (micro)emancipation. The antiemancipatory elements are too

salient, and it concentrates solely on means, taking corporate goals and management prerogatives as given, thus cementing these particular con-

straints (Stablein & Nord, 1985). But we are saying that corporate culture should not be a target of blanket rejection, for it can be mobilized in a version of CT committed to "small wins" and an interest in organizational

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

460 Academy of Management Review July

practitioners. Observations of the importance of people's functioning re- garding creativity, freedom, and meaning can be drawn upon as a basis for more sustained questioning of the priorities and ends of companies and

working life.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this article, we have sought to initiate and develop a discussion about

humanistic management theory, Critical Theory (CT), and poststructuralism (PS). We have developed some ideas for management and organization

studies guided by an idea of emancipation that takes account of PS critiques and tries to avoid the problem of being perceived as irrelevant.

Proponents of orthodox CT challenge the assumptions of consensus of values and the legitimacy of managerial prerogative that are taken for

granted and celebrated within conventional management philosophies.

However, CT's utopian, abstract orientation serves to expose antiemanci- patory elements in humanistic management philosophy, to the exclusion of a sustained consideration of their contributions, albeit limited and compro- mised, to a questioning and/or incremental type of emancipatory project. We have suggested that an appreciation of key insights of PS facilitates a reconceptualization of the idea of emancipation that supports less grandiose

and less remote forms of critical research and scholarship. In turn, this appreciation enhances the prospects of communicating with those who are open to questioning and reforming the truths of established management theory. To this end, we have constructed a framework for guiding a less ambitious and more compromise-oriented critical approach to manage- ment theory. Following this idea, we demonstrated how our reconceptual- ization of emancipation can be applied so that the user can appreciate and

assess the contribution of a variety of discourses and practices to the project of microemancipation. Finally, we illustrated how this project might be continued by encouraging new, experimental approaches to research, writ- ing, and reading.

Scaling down CT is consistent with the recognition that, in common with all forms of knowledge, it is power-laden and can become a source of oppression. In the absence of critical reflection on their own claims, Critical Theorists can overlook how their identification of ideology and autonomy is historically (situationally) accomplished, an oversight that engenders the abstraction of knowledge from the social relations of its production. The challenge is to minimize the antiemancipatory elements and to foster the emancipatory impulse by encouraging questioning, reflection, and open- mindedness. At the same time, if the emancipatory project is to be sus- tained, it is necessary to avoid the nihilistic tendencies within PS, where a

concern to avoid contributing to "totalizing thinking" can become a stronger motive than taking the risk of trying to contribute to something positive and constructive. For us, the reconceptualization of CT (e.g., through critical ethnography) can make more concrete and relevant CT's established cri-

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 461

tique of technocratic consciousness in a way that promotes an appreciation and deflation of the grandiose, rationalistic pretentions of so much man- agement and organization literature.

Encouraging a dialogue between CT and PS, especially the work of Foucault, we have suggested, is supportive of less abstract, ethnographi- cally based studies of management and organization that render more ac-

cessible the rather remote, philosophical arguments of CT. This dialogue encourages an approach to writing and reading that is more open to the ambivalence both within management theory which, arguably, is not wholly "antiemancipatory," and in the arguments of CT which, with the benefit of a PS perspective, are not unambiguously emancipatory.

In a space between Critical Theorists' commitment to critical reason

and radical change, the skepticism of poststructuralists about metanarra- tives and efforts to separate power and knowledge, and humanistic ideas

for reducing the gap between human needs and corporate objectives, we locate an agenda for microemancipation. This agenda favors incremental change but, because it has open boundaries to more utopian ideas, it does

not take as given the contemporary social relations, corporate ends, and the constraints associated with a particular macro-order. The preservation of the concept of emancipation (including microemancipation) from dilution or

submersion by approaches that aim at other ideals and are often antieman- cipatory in their effect is of vital importance. A healthy interest in avoiding

grandiosity in terms of the scope of the critique must not lead to a phobia about conceptualizing the significance and influence of the wider historical context of organizational thought and action. Otherwise, the microemanci- pation project becomes conflated with the task of social engineering.

REFERENCES

Alvesson, M. 1987. Organization theory and technocratic consciousness: Rationality, ideol-

ogy and quality of work. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Alvesson, M., & Billing, Y. D. 1992. Organization and gender. Towards a differentiated un- derstanding. Organization Studies, 13: 75-105.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. In press. Making sense of management: A critical analysis. London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). 1992. Critical management studies. London: Sage.

Argyris, C. 1964. Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley.

Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann.

Calds, M., & Smircich, L. 1987. Is the organizational culture literature dominant but dead? Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, Milan.

Calds, M., & Smircich, L. 1991. Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies, 12: 567-601.

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

462 Academy of Management Review July

Clegg, S., & Dunkerly, D. 1980. Organization, class and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). 1986. Writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Connerton, P. 1980. The tragedy of enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An introduction. Organization Studies, 9: 91-112.

Dawe, A. 1979. Theories of social action. In T. Bottomore & R. Nisbet (Eds.), A history of sociological analysis: 362-417. London: Heinemann.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. 1982. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Deetz, S. 1992a. Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communi- cation and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Deetz, S. 1992b. Disciplinary power in the modern corporation: Discursive practice and conflict suppression. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies. London: Sage.

Deetz, S., & Kersten, S. 1983. Critical models of interpretive research. In L. Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organization: 147- 171. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Dews, P. (Ed.). 1986. Habermas: Autonomy and solidarity. London: Verso.

Edwards, R. 1979. Contested terrain. London: Heineman.

Elders, F. (Ed.). 1974. Reflexive water: The basic concerns of mankind. London: Souvenir.

Fay, B. 1987. Critical social science. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Ferguson, K. 1984. The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Filby, I., & Willmott, H. 1988. Ideologies and contradictions in a public relations department: The seduction and impotence of living myth. Organization Studies, 9: 335-349.

Fischer, F. 1984. Ideology and organization theory. In F. Fischer & C. Sarianni (Eds.), Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy: 179-190. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Forester, J. 1983. Critical theory and organizational analysis. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: 234-246. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Forester, J. 1992. Fieldwork in a Habermasian way: The extraordinary character of ordinary professional work. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies. London: Sage.

Foster, H. (Ed.). 1985. Postmodern culture. London: Pluto Press.

Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. 1982. The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8: 777-795.

Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Fromm, E. 1976. To have or to be? New York: Harper & Brothers.

Frost, P. 1980. Toward a radical framework for practicing organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 5: 501-507.

Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1992 Alvesson and Willmott 463

Gustavsen, B. 1985. Workplace reform and democratic dialogue. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 6: 4.

Habermas, J. 1971. Toward a rational society. London: Heinemann.

Habermas, J. 1972. Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.

Habermas, J. 1982. A reply to my critics. In J. Thompson & D. Held (Eds.), Habernas: Critical debates. London: Macmillan.

Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action (vol. 1). Boston: Beacon Press.

Held, D. 1980. Introduction to critical theory. London: Hutchinson.

Horkheimer, M. 1976. Traditional and critical theory. In P. Connerton (Ed.), Critical sociology:

Harmondsworth, England: Penguin (Original work published in 1937).

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. 1947. The dialectics of enlightenment. London: Verso.

Hoy, D. C. (Ed.). 1986. Foucault: A critical reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Jay, M. 1973. The dialectical imagination. Boston: Little, Brown.

Jeffcutt, P. 1991. From interpretation to representation in organisational analysis: Post- modernism, ethnography and organisational culture. Paper presented at the Towards a

New Theory of Organization Conference, Keele University.

Jermier, J. 1985. When the sleeper wakes: A short story extending themes in radical organiza- tion theory. Journal of Management, 11(2): 67-80.

Kanter, R. M. 1983. The change masters. Innovations for productivity in the American cor-

poration. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kellner, D. 1988. Postmodernism as social theory: Some challenges and problems. Theory, Culture & Society, 5: 239-269.

Knights, D., & Collinson, D. 1987. Disciplining the shopfloor: A comparison of the disciplinary effects of managerial psychology and financial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12: 457-477.

Knights, D., & Willmott, H. C. 1989. Power and subjectivity at work: From degradation to subjugation in social relations. Sociology, 23: 535-558.

Kunda, G. 1991. Ritual and the management of corporate culture: A critical perspective. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Organizational Symbolism, Copenhagen.

Lyotard, J.-F. 1984. The postmodeem condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manches- ter University Press.

Marcus, G., & Fischer, M. 1986. Anthropology as cultural critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Marcuse, H. 1955. Eros and civilization. Boston: Beacon Press.

Marcuse, H. 1964. One-dimensional man. Boston: Beacon Press.

Martin, J. 1990. Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1: 339-359.

McGregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Meisenhelder, T. 1989. Habermas and feminism. The future of critical theory. In R. A. Wallace (Ed.), Feminism and sociological theory: 119-132. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mumby, D. 1988. Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology and dom- ination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. 1982. In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

464 Academy of Management Review July

Pondy, L. R. 1983. The role of metaphors and myths in organization and in the facilitation of

change. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Rabinow, P. (Ed.). 1986. The Foucault reader. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Rorty, R. 1985. Habermas and Lyotard on postmodernity. In R. J. Bernstein (Ed.), Habermas and Modernity: 161- 175. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rorty, R. 1989. Contingency, irony and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosen, M. 1985. Breakfirst at Spiro's: Dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of Management, 11(2): 31-48.

Rosen, M. 1991. Coming to terms with the field: Understanding and doing organizational

ethnography. Journal of Management Studies, 28: 1-24.

Sandberg, A. (Ed.). 1981. Forskning for forandring [Research for change]. Stockholm: Centre for Working Life.

Schumacher, F. 1974. Small is beautiful. London: Abacus.

Scitovsky, T. 1976. The joyless economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shotter, T., & Gergen, K. (Ed.). 1989. Texts of identity. London: Sage.

Smircich, L. 1983. Organizations as shared meanings. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Soeters, J. 1986. Excellent companies as social movements. Journal of Management Studies, 23: 299-312.

Stablein, R., & Nord, W. 1985. Practical and emancipatory interests in organizational symbol- ism. Journal of Management, 11(2): 13-28.

Steffy, B., & Grimes, A. 1986. A critical theory of organization science. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 11: 322-336.

Storey, J. 1985. Management control as a bridging concept. Journal of Management Studies, 22: 269-291.

Tinker, T., & Lowe, E. 1984. One-dimensional management science: The making of techno-

cratic consciousness. Interfaces, 14: 40-56.

Wachtel, P. 1983. The poverty of affluence. A psychological portrait of the American way of life. New York: Free Press.

Weedon, C. 1988. Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Weisbord, M. 1987. Productive workplaces. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Willmott, H. 1991a. Breaking the paradigm mentality. Working paper, Manchester School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.

Willmott, H. 1991b. Strength is ignorance: Slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern organizations. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Organizational Symbolism, Copenhagen.

Mats Alvesson is a professor of business administration at the University of Gothen-

burg in Sweden. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Lund in 1984. His re-

search interests include critical theory, gender, power, management of professional

service organizations, organizational culture and symbolism, and the philosophy of

science.

Hugh Willmott is a senior lecturer in the Manchester School of Management. Since

receiving his Ph.D. from Manchester University he has had appointments at Aston

University and the Copenhagen Business School. His current research interests in-

clude the regulation of the accounting industry, the changing organization of mana-

gerial work, and the labor process of white-collar employees.

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:32:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms