The Works of Michel Foucault - Essay Example

The Critical Analysis of Foucault’s ment about Trapping into the Illusion of Power “He who is ed to a field of visibility he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles [the prisoner and the guard – M.I.]; he becomes the principle of his own subjection.” (Foucault, 1977: 202-203). Introduction For the past two decades, the major fields such as communication, teamwork, accounting and management were strongly influenced by the works of Michel Foucault (Dixon, 2007). Michel Foucault was born in 1926. He was a French Intellectual, influenced by the debates in French Marxism and structural Marxism, in particular (Izac, 2014). In his works, Foucalt has focused on five major topics, including the following: discourse, power/knowledge, de-centered human subject, body, and micro-politics (Izac, 2014). This paper focuses on the topic of power and knowledge, and analyses how Foucault s view on power and discipline explains the managerial work and management power/roles. Foucault’s view on power and discipline Among a wide range of subjects and topics covered in the Foucault’s work, there are three central concerns expressed by the author: power, knowledge, and subjectivity (Townley, 1993). Power is viewed by Foucault as a commodity, which is embodied either in a person, structure, or institution and is held or possessed for achieving individual and/or organizational purposes (Townley, 1993). As Foucault (1981:94) explained, “power is not something that is acquired, seized, or shared, something one holds on to or allows to slip away…rather power is relational; it becomes apparent when it is exercised” (Townley, 1993: 520). This definition gives more insight on how Foucault views power. Moreover, Foucault views power and knowledge as two inseparable and interrelated elements (Izac, 2014). He has coined a term “power-knowledge” as power and knowledge directly imply one another, whereas power produces knowledge, and knowledge produces power. In Foucault’s point of view, “knowledge is power” as knowledge provides someone with the power and capability to control, manage and change the socio-political order (Izac, 2014; Foucault, 1980). Furthermore, Foucault explains how organisations and institutions, possessing power impose discipline by defining, creating, normalizing and enforcing knowledge and truth in human society (Izac, 2014). Thus, power attained and supported through knowledge produces our reality, dictates our behaviour, and creates our beliefs about the truth (Foucault 1991, cited in Izac, 2014). In this case, knowledge presupposes and constitute power relations at the same time (Izac, 2014). According to Foucault, knowledge attained through a scientific approach and supported by the facts and evidence is a truth, which empowers the possessors of knowledge (Izac, 2014). Power produces rituals of truth; it produced reality (Foucault, 1977:194). The government, organisations, and/or institutions possessing truth and knowledge form the values, knowledge, and reality of individuals (Izac, 2014). This reality is usually reinforced through the education system, political and social institutions, and the media. Thus, power is a socialised, everyday embodied element (Izac, 2014). The mechanisms of power are intangible as they are reflected in the functioning of modern society (Izac, 2014). Foucault explains that modern society is governed mainly by self-discipline and belief of what is right and wrong, good or bad. Foucault’s quote given at the beginning of this essay about individuals, who inscribe themselves in the power relation in which they simultaneously are both the prisoners and the guards perfectly explains the concept of power-knowledge relationship. Foucault compares a “panapticon”- an architectural structure, whereas the building is built in a circle form, and in the middle of this circle is located a tower with a guard. Initially, it was an architectural design for a prison, enabling to make every individual feel continuously observed and watched (Murphy, 2013). This continuous feeling evolves into a continuous self-learning and self-disciplining process, which finally makes people to behave in a certain way (Izac, 2014). Thus, even though people might not be observed (and are less likely observed every minute) understanding of the fact that they can be watched anytime makes them behave in expected manner. This knowledge enables “watchers” to discipline people, and to internalise power within every individual (Carter, McKinlay, and Rowlinson, 2002). Thus, the power of knowledge internalised by individuals, plays a role of a guard in the central tower. On the one hand, an individual is a prisoner of social reality cultivated through social norms, values, and expected norms of behaviour. On the other hand, an individual is his own guardian, as he controls his own behaviour through his mind. This principle of power attained through knowledge illustrates how individuals become their own prisoners and guardians. However, it is worth to note, that panopticism is much broader concept, whereas surveillance is only one of the elements of disciplinary technology (Murphy, 2013). The idea of this power is to train individuals to behave in a prescribed, socially-acceptable, or expected manner. Thus, a person who was a ‘prisoner of a panapticon structure’ will more likely adjust his/her behaviour to other situations, even in case if there is no surveillance. Thus, occurs a process of normalisation, whereas individuals are continuously trained through disciplinary techniques and measures (Murphy, 2013). Foucault explains that power-knowledge relationship occurs when there are the following generic features: enclosure, rank, partitioning, individualisation, and exercise (Coopey & McKinlay, 2010). These features are common for various organisations and institutions, including workplace (Coopey & McKinlay, 2010). Many researchers in organisational studies broadly used the concept of a panapticon in order to illustrate the forms of management and control at different organisational levels (Carter, McKinlay, and Rowlinson, 2002; Townley, 1993). A more detailed analysis of Foucault’s claim about power-knowledge relationship with a focus made on managerial work and management power is presented in the next section. Analysis of Foucault’s claim by focusing on managerial work and management power/roles Controlling function and electronic surveillance As controlling is one of the major functions of managers, Foucault’s ideas on power-knowledge relationship has direct impact on modern control functions (Raelin, 2011). While initially the idea of control at work was born in the era of industrial revolution, it is widely accepted and practiced in office environments (Sewell, 1998). An organisation or a company employs individuals, brings them together and forms a population, which can be subdivided into various categories (Coopey & McKinlay, 2010). Individuals are subdivided and ranked not only by task or function they perform within an organisation, but also by hierarchical categorisation. Thus, organisations can monitor and control the behaviour of their employees, and to benchmark it against set corporate targets, general social norms and ethical considerations. Foucault’s use of Bentherm’s concept of panapticon prison is often compared with the modern systems of electronic surveillance (Holland, Cooper, and Hecker, 2015). With the development of new information technologies organisations have increased the scope and reach of workplace surveillance, making employees even more subjected to intense scrutiny and monitoring” (Sewell, 1998:397). Instead of a tower inside the circle, employees can be monitored practically all the time due to cameras, video, recording and other technology devices. Thus, individuals in modern organisations also experience the ‘presumption of constant watchfulness’ (Coopey & McKinlay, 2010: 108). This presumption is supported by the fact of perpetual surveillance, which disciplines individuals and changes their behaviour and attitudes. For example, many call-centres practice recording the conversations of their employees with customers. By knowing that every conversation is recorded, an employee controls his/her behaviour for being appropriate and avoiding rude or unprofessional responses. In this case, control function is performed by the power of knowledge, theorised by Foucault. Foucault’s explanation of power and knowledge seems to be absolutely reasonable and logical. Employees, being aware that they are monitored by audio recording devices are less likely to behave in a wrong or inappropriate way, as otherwise, they will be punished. While nobody knows for sure whether somebody will listen to some or all conversations, everybody will try to avoid potential risks and control themselves. Slef-disciplined behaviour should have direct impact on the quality of service provided. Thus, for example, General Electric has established the Answer Center in order to manage customer’s inquiries and calls. The Center has shown that 96% of customers were satisfied mainly in result of GE’s extensive employee surveillance system (Bylinsky, 1991 cited in Wood, 1998). The American Express company illustrated another example of positive effect of surveillance at workplace. The company has reported an overall rise of its productivity of 5% a year after introducing phone-monitoring (Wood, 1998: 138). All these cases indicate that employees are more likely to perform self-control and self-discipline function, and managers will attain greater power and control over their subordinates and employees. According to Foucault power-knowledge approach will contribute also in further training and development of employees, as fear of being caught in the act of something wrong will more likely guide an individual in future, forming thus new norms of behaviour and determining the conduct of individuals in future (Foucault, 1977). Drawing on the Foucault’s work ‘Discipline and Punish’ management studies of the workplace show employees as passive recipients of power and discipline employed (Skinner, 2012). Sewell (1998) argues that controlling approach undermines trust and cooperation at workplace. Holland, Cooper, and Hecker (2015) have carried out an empirical study based on the data from the 2012 Australian Electronic Workplace Survey of 500 employees, who have been randomly selected. An empirical study has supported Sewell’s claims on lose of trust in management in result of electronic monitoring surveillance (Holland, Cooper, and Hecker, 2015). In addition to trust issues, significant number of employees also claim that corporate surveillance practices have negative impact on the workplace and violate employees’ privacy rights (Lee and Kleiner, 2003). On the other hand, monitoring and control is one of the key functions of management as it enables organisations to track its overall performance, measure results and set new targets and goals (Lee and Kleiner, 2003). Moreover, surveillance allows organisations to protect itself from stealing and leak out of confidential data and information. Thus, there occurs a clash of interests, the interests of employer and interests of employees (Lee and Kleiner, 2003). Despite the issues related to human rights and privacy issues, organisational control achieved without direct controlling can be viewed not as a negative and restrictive phenomenon, but on the contrary, a positive element in the modern context. Managers are responsible to perform their responsibilities and duties, which include protection of business interests and property against fraud, inappropriate behaviour, and theft (Lee and Kleiner, 2003). Continuous electronic surveillance helps managers not only to decrease the risks of inappropriate or unethical behaviour but also to improve productivity and control quality of products produced and services offered (Lee and Kleiner, 2003). In addition to controlling function, employees can be managed and communicated more effectively (Sewell, 1998). Managers can use monitoring devices in order to explain its overall impact on the business success, to provide feedback to the employees on their performance and to tie the remuneration program of employees with set targets. Additional effects of electronic workplace surveillance on managers and managing While electronic workplace surveillance has many different effects on employees, it also has some effects on managers and managing process (Reilly, 2010). Reilly (2010) has carried out a research analysing the impact of use of quantified electronic performance measurement from an employment relationship perspective. The research has shown that many managers felt under pressure to manage based on the surfeit of electronic surveillance tools rather than by utilising management skills and traits (Reilly, 2010). Many managers have felt themselves “Performance Intermediary Executives” rather than true managers in the conventional sense (Reilly, 2010). Thus, on the one hand, managers are provided with greater opportunities for performing controlling and monitoring functions, while on the other hand, managers tend to underutilise their full managerial potential. While this aspect doesn’t limit Foucault’s view on power and knowledge it indicates that there are some other aspects arising in managerial context. These aspects should definitely be addressed in order to wipe out poor and unprofessional managerial practices and enable managers to fulfil their full potential (Reilly, 2010). However, this issue is a new separate topic, which should be discussed separately. Personal experience related to management practice Once I had an opportunity to have practice in commercial organisation as an operator in call –centre. I was well aware that my conversations with the clients were recorded, and I had informed each customer about our policy. I was instructed to inform the clients about record of a phone call as a company’s policy aiming to improve customer service. In that moment I did not realise the “cherished secrets” of the company, as I was doubtful, that somebody will check every phone call. However, having analysed the Foucault’s approach to power and order through a surveillance practice I have understood that the management was using the fact of recording for encouraging the employees for self-discipline process. This understanding made me feel even more responsible for being polite and professional with customers, even though no obvious changes have been introduced. In my own experience, I can definitely say that the power of knowledge suggested by Foucault is a powerful tool in managing and it should be carefully and thoughtfully implemented within an organisation or any other social institution. Conclusion For the past two decades, the major fields including management were strongly influenced by the works of Michel Foucault. Among a wide range of subjects and topics covered in the Foucault’s work, power was viewed by Foucault as an important element necessary for achieving individual and/or organizational purposes. Foucault views power and knowledge as two inseparable and interrelated elements whereas power and knowledge directly imply one another. The power attained and supported through knowledge produces a reality and truth. Therefore, the government, organisations, and/or institutions possessing truth and knowledge form the values, knowledge, and reality of individuals. The concept of power-knowledge relationship has been perfectly embodied in the Foucault’s quote given as a major topic for this essay. Foucault comparison of a “panapticon”- implies the principle of a continuous self-learning and self-disciplining process, which finally makes people to behave in a certain way. Even though people might not be observed understanding of the fact that they can be watched anytime makes them behave in expected manner. This knowledge enables “watchers” to discipline people, and to internalise power within every individual. Thus, the power of knowledge internalised by individuals, plays a role of a guard in the central tower. Foucault’s ideas on power-knowledge relationship has direct impact on modern control functions. Foucault’s use of Bentherm’s concept of panapticon prison is compared with the modern systems of electronic surveillance. Instead of a physical building of panapticon, employees can are monitored practically all the time due to cameras, video, recording and other technology devices. Individuals in modern organisations experience the ‘presumption of constant watchfulness’, which disciplines individuals and changes their behaviour and attitudes according to the corporate expectations. This process enables the company to improve customers’ satisfaction level, control quality of products and services, and to protect itself from from stealing and leak out of confidential data and information. However, in addition to improved controlling function performance, continuous surveillance approach undermines trust and cooperation at workplace. Significant number of employees also claim that corporate surveillance practices have negative impact on the workplace and violate employees’ privacy rights, while managers believe that this practice undermines their managerial skills and potential. Taking into account the theoretical background, empirical evidence and personal experience it is possible to conclude that Foucault ideas on power and knowledge attained through continuous feel of being observed are applicable in management and managing. While it is not clear enough to what extent continuous surveillance impacts on an individuals’ behavior and change of attitudes in the long-term perspective, it is definitely possible to claim that it is an effective controlling instrument without actual control. There can be exceptions and limitations of this theory, which should be a subject of further research. References: Ball, K 2010, Workplace Surveillance: An Overview, Labor History, 51, 1, pp. 87-106 Carter, C., McKinlay, A. and Rowlinson, M. (2002). Foucault: Management and history. Organization, vol. 9 (4), pp. 515-526. Coopey, R. & McKinlay, A. 2010, "Power without knowledge? Foucault and Fordism, c.1900-50", Labor History, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 107-125. Dixon, M.A. (2007), "Transforming Power: Expanding the Inheritance of Michel Foucault in Organizational Studies", Management Communication Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 283-296. Durso, S.C., (2005). Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace: Modeling the panoptic effect potential of communication technology, organizational factors and policies, The University of Texas at Austin. Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings by Michel Foucault, 1972-77. C. Gordion, Ed.). Brighton, England: Harvester. Foucault, M. (1981). The history of sexuality: Vol.1. The will to knowledge. London: Penguin. Holland, P. and Cooper, B., Hecker, R. (2015). ‘Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace: the effects on trust in management, and the moderating role of occupational type’, Personnel Review, vol 44, iss. 1, pp. 161-175. Izak, M. (2014). ‘Foucalt and Critical Management Studies’, Presentation. Lee S., and Kleiner, H. (2003), ‘Electronic surveillance in the workplace’, Management Research News, vol. 26 (2/3/4), pp. 72-81. Murphy, M. (2013), Social theory and education research: understanding Foucault, Habermas, Bourdieu and Derrida, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. Raelin, J. (2011), "The end of managerial control?", Group & organization management, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 135-160. Reilly, S.M. 2010, The use of electronic surveillance and performance measures in the workplace: a qualitative investigation, University of Durham (United Kingdom). Sewell, G (1998), The Discipline of Teams: The Control of Team-based Industrial Work through Electronic and Peer Surveillance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 2, pp. 397-428. Skinner, D. (2012). ‘Foucault, subjectivity and ethics: towards a self-forming subject’, Organization, 20 (6), pp. 904-923. Townley, B. (1993), "Foucault, Power/Knowledge, and Its Relevance for Human Resource Management", The Academy of Management Review, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 518-545. Wood, A. (1998), ‘Omniscient organisations and bodily observations: electronic surveillance in the workplace’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol 18, iss. 5/6, pp. 136-1874. Read More