Foucaults Ideas about Management - Essay Example

Foucault’s Claim and Managerial Work, Power and Functions A Foucault’s point of view enables one to understand the manner in which power is exercised in a specific organisation, the programmes, strategies and technologies that facilitate power relations, and to identify the beneficiaries and victims of such relations. The advantage of an informed critique of power lies in the fact that it entails significant implications for comprehending the character and function of organisations (Kearins, 1996). In addition, it has important implications for the resistance of power strategies, which are seemingly unbiased and autonomous (Felluga, 2012). For example, the federal agencies can monitor the conduct and movement of the people by the novel technological advancements, such as the Internet, mobile phones, census, credit cards, and the burgeoning surveillance cameras. This has promoted the system of control. The Panopticon achieves several things, such as the reform of prisoners, treatment of patients, instruction of schoolchildren, supervision of workers, and physically restricting the insane (Felluga, 2012). This work deals with Foucault’s theories of power, power relations and its Implications for modern organisations. In this regard, organisational management, and practices have been discussed. Concepts of panopticism, discourse analysis, and subjectification have been scrutinised. In addition, Panopticon of Bentham, critical theories, such as the labour process theory and critical realism theory have been examined. Visibility as a source of mitigating the difficulty with human agencies has been analysed. Finally conclusions were made based on the research. The notion of subject, as contended by Foucault (1984), has to be clearly defined. This is essential for applying his power discourses. He argues that the following types of objectification transform humans into subjects. First, modes of inquiry, such as biology, economics, and linguistics. Second, dividing practices, wherein the subject is separated from others or divided in himself. This is illustrated by the differentiation between good and bad, and sane and insane. Third, the ways in which people transform themselves into subjects. An instance of this is their recognition of themselves as subjects of sexuality. Moreover, subject denotes domination by some other entity or being attached to one’s own identity by self-knowledge or conscience. This suggests a variety of power that subjugates and makes subject to. Thus, subject conveys something more than the term individual, as the subject is the recipient of action and objectification, in addition to being the perpetrator. This places the subject at the centre of every power relation (Pearson, 2010). As such, organisational research draws heavily upon the Foucault’s theories. For instance, one study by Sewell and Wilkinson (1992) on electronic factory surveillance discerned that the practice of tracing faults to the individual worker who had perpetrated them, resulted in team based control, when the work was done by teams. The team, in isolation, had been provided with specific targets, which served to create the necessity to control the team members (Seeck & Kantola, 2009). In this manner, a panoptic power relation came to the fore. Moreover, the individual members of the team are likely to be humiliated for failure to perform. A number of studies, such as those by Rose (1989), and Knights and Willmott (1989), continue to regard organisational management as systems that subjugate workers, by means of their systemic identities. Governmentality, provides the means for conceptualising power. Due to the Foucault’s theory, power is not regarded as a predetermined and stable authority. This theory has promoted understanding regarding unexpected outcomes, developments, and polyphony in organisations (Seeck & Kantola, 2009). It has been claimed by scholars, such as Burchell, Gordon and Miller (1991), and Hindess (1998) that organisational control can be re-conceptualised, via the Foucault’s theory and the concept of governmentality. Foucault’s theory analyses power relations as organisational practices that facilitate the temporary acquisition of power over others. In the context of organisation analysis, power persists as the least understood and most overused of notions. It provides a logic regarding analytic organising and organisation that is founded upon human agency and social power. The structural notion of organisational power tends to be accompanied by a deeper focus upon the micro-political processes that underlie the acquisition of power. This interpretation of organisational power evidently places considerable emphasis upon the detailed tactical manoeuvres that produce a transitional equilibrium relating to advantage, with respect to the competing socio-political interests (Reed, 2003). In addition, the issue of micro-politics in Foucault’s theory consists of bio-politics and discourse politics. The latter pertains to the attempt of the marginal groups to challenge the constraining of individuals to normal identities and achieve the free play of differences. Discourse enforces the standards of what is true, rational or sane, and this renders it a form of power. The violation of these rules results in exclusion and marginalisation. Power generates discourse, however, the latter is not entirely controlled by power (Best & Kellner, 1991). Moreover, discourse can be utilised as an opposing strategy. Foucault was emphatic in describing the predominant view regarding power as being defective. This was due to his opinion that within it, power itself resided in the state and percolated downwards to the courts, schools and other lower levels. This state of affairs was described by Foucault as juridical consciousness (Burrell, 1988). It was the desire of Foucault to describe power as being located in the basic correlations of society. As such, at a fundamental level, society includes several small and dispersed diffuse power relations. These are always in tension and the global nature of discipline emerges from these basic power relations. The disciplinary mode of domination is universal and deeply rooted. By merely challenging and overturning the state, discipline cannot be eliminated (Burrell, 1988). From this perspective, there can be no early end to disciplinary power. Moreover, there is considerable compatibility between Foucault’s panopticism and building theory, which attempts to elucidate the controlling influences of novel approaches to the organisation of the industrial labour process. Foucault’s work, which encompassed three decades, covered several areas, and his discussion of the panopticon constituted a minor portion of this work (Sewell, 1998). However, the perspective of Braverman (1974) towards the labour process theory was compromised by the presence of several limitations, such as the misleading nature of accounts that failed to acknowledge the presence of different skill levels. Several of the more important limitations of this theory would have been addressed upon adopting Foucault’s work. In addition, Foucault’s approach could prove to be relevant even in the context of recent developments, such as teamwork, electronic workplace surveillance, and the limited reestablishment of manual and mental work (Sewell, 1998).Consequently, workers tend to voluntarily take part in activities that are ostensibly opposed to their interests. This is an important area, in which Foucault’s work explains the manipulation of subjectivity at the workplace, so as to implement control upon the workers. Foucault had demonstrated that in social situations, a number of forces exert their influence upon the subjectivity of a person (Sewell, 1998). Furthermore, the notion regarding power, namely that managers wield power over those who are devoid of power is central to marketing and management theories. Such managerialism, which is based on this conceptualisation of power, confers managers with the status to compel workers to act and behave in certain ways that could even be against their will (Fougère & Skålén, 2012). This has been noticed in several assembly units of the developing world. With regard to disciplinary power, Foucault stated that when the manager or supervisor was constantly visible, the subordinate or disciplined individual was maintained in a state of subjugation. Such process of examination, unlike sovereign power, did not impose itself upon its subjects and merely held them under a system of objectification (Fougère & Skålén, 2012). In addition, the material and social practices related to surveillance and their relevance to the generation of social order and control has been accorded increased importance (Simon, 2005).This has been the consequence of the development of the more pervasive forms of institutional monitoring. Consequently, managerialism forms based upon power and knowledge are not considered by the majority of the people to constitute a form of power that acts in the interests of the power holders. These forms are regarded as neutral knowledge. Therefore, it can be contended that the diffusion and globalisation of such managerialism and ideology will not be contradicted and opposed to the same extent as managerialism that is underpinned by sovereign power (Fougère & Skålén, 2012). Moreover, any appraisal scheme is critically dependent upon control and access to information. The implementation of an appraisal scheme is accompanied by issues, such as those related to monitoring the scheme. These dynamics are promoted by incremental decision making. The knowledge emerging from an appraisal has to be legitimised y the appraiser. Monitoring entails the generation of a managerial function, and it is not limited to the mere recording of processes. In the conventional appraisal discussion it is assumed that the documentation limits itself to recording summaries, which summarises an independent and distinct reality (Townley, 1993). This is essential, otherwise, they become devoid of an important facet of their meaning. In addition, Foucault and his followers regarded an entity of sequences of signs as enouncements. From this perspective, a discourse was deemed to be sequences of these correspondences to subjects and objects, and other enouncements. Moreover, a discursive formation was described as the regularities that generated such discourses. Discursive formation was utilised by Foucault in his analysis of political economy, natural history, and other large bodies of knowledge (University of Washington, 2010). Instances of these being words and things, which imply some action at the end of the task under consideration. Furthermore, Foucault made a deep study of power relations, in the context of the government. In the majority of the cases, political power relations were unsuccessful in achieving absolute domination. Foucault declared that power was relational. Another major declaration of Foucault was that it would be incorrect to regard the state and other such institutions as being fundamentally oppressive, permanent and stable. Upon overestimating the problem of the state, there would be a tendency to create a paradox (Băllan, 2009). This was due to the fact that overestimating the problem of the state was a form of analysis that simplified the state to a certain number of functions. As such, Foucault’s works have been utilised in the management region of organisations, through critical studies by giving importance to disciplinary action. Some of the questions raised by him were who can and should govern, who should be governed, and the manner of perceiving the methods of government (Kearins, 1996). At a very basic level, Foucault claimed that political power relations were destined to end in a fiasco, with regard to achieving their objectives. Moreover, the panopticon of Bentham (1798), was his ideal design for a place of incarceration. Foucault described it as a model of disciplinary organisation or an organisation that was guaranteed by the reciprocated reinforcement of knowledge and power. Management education has grown tremendously from the 1960s to the contemporary era, and has been regarded as being of considerable significance for the modern organisation as a disciplinary device. From this perspective, human resource management (HRM), management education, and personnel constitute advanced stages in the status of individuals in power relations (Fox, 1989). Furthermore, Foucault subscribed to the view that power was inherent in a system of relationships that was methodically interrelated. He did not believe that power existed in things. He promoted the view that disciplinary power was not to be considered as negative power. It did not constitute a sequence of preclusions that delimited, prohibited and deterred the activities of the lower order organisational members. On the other hand, power was to be regarded as a force that was actively directed towards the body and its potentials, thereby transforming it into an obedient and beneficial entity (Burrell, 1988). Consequently, organisational superordinates fail to establish discipline, via their strategies or actions. In fact, superordinates tend to be disciplined to the same extent as their subordinates. Disciplinary power, per se, is invested in, transmitted by and reproduced through the people in their daily existence, and is distinct, consistent, comprehensive, and continuous (Burrell, 1988). According to Foucault, the individual body is transformed into a component that can be expressed, relocated or positioned. Its location and not its valour or strength, define it. Moreover, it is defined by the interval it traverses, regularity, and the order that determines its movements. As such, a soldier constitutes a fragment of mobile space, and this is of greater significance than the soldier’s courage or honour. When the soldier is bearing arms, he covers a maximum of two feet in all directions. Thus, a troop of infantry in battle encompasses the same number of steps as the number of ranks in it (Foucault, 1991). The above presents a functional reduction of the body. However, it constitutes an insertion of the body segment into an entire ensemble over which it is expressed. Initially, soldiers are trained to make their body function for specific operations, by employing different parts. At a higher level, the soldier has to become an element in a mechanism. Thus, instruction to soldiers is first on an individual basis (Foucault, 1991). Afterwards, collective instruction is imparted, so that a group of soldiers function as one unit. As such, subjectification is a process, whereby, a person transforms himself into a subject. There are two ideas that emerge from the concept of subjectification. The first of these ideas states that subjectification is a mode of power that can also be described as a governing procedure of the individual who is self-enterprising. The second idea states that subjectification is the possibility of self-expression. The power of subjectification is very effective as a communicative and intersubjective practice that is based upon the extant limitations and conditions of society. Thus, subjectification functions in accordance with the current or future actions that intend to promote or eliminate possible relationships to others. Governing action consists of acting upon others and the self. As a consequence, it can be understood as the different social rationalities and practices, wherein individuals utilise strategies for their subjectification (Hildebrand-Nilshon, et al., 2001). The existing critical theories, such as the labour process theory, post-structuralism theory, and critical realism theory have the intention of assisting in clarifying the obscure ideas regarding identity and subject, in order to disclose the processes that suppress individuals within the devious power of discourse. At the same time, an exponential increase has been discerned in the number of deconstructions. As a result, the term subjectification will soon be rendered obsolete. The critical theories enjoy a common feature, namely that they relate to the question of self-enunciation and speech. From a fundamental point of view, subjectification can be portrayed as the creation of the self by the self (Hildebrand-Nilshon, et al., 2001). It is evident that speech tends to exhibit a basic mode of the subtle process of subjectification. Moreover, a problem is subtly influenced by power, which significantly affects the process of structuring it. This has been a cause for concern, and Foucault made it clear that the manner in which a problem is structured influences the solution arrived at for that problem. This state of affairs is central to the work of Foucault. Instances being the development of the problem of insanity in the medieval ages, the genesis of contemporary medical discourse on account of the organisation of specialist hospitals and clinics in the 18th century, and the emergence of social sciences as tools for structuring issues (Cooper & Burrell, 1988). In addition, the genealogies of Foucault are seized with the body. The latter is conceptualised as a material surface upon which the micro-physics of power leave their imprint. This has been emphasised in his work, ‘Discipline and Punish’, wherein Foucault declares that the body is the inscribed surface of events and genealogy is located within the expression of body and history (Garland, 2014). The genealogist re-associates contemporary bodies with the historical struggles and their accompanying exercise of power. The aim behind this re-connecting is to usher in greater critical thinking regarding the meaning and worth of this phenomenon. In this context, Foucault had declared that experience has imparted the valuable lesson that the history of various forms of rationality is on occasion, more effective in upsetting convictions and dogmatism than abstract criticism (Garland, 2014). In order to be effective, the exercise of power has to invoke the disciplinary power of the norm. This reflects the actual power of certain documents to mould people’s opinions and ideas regarding what is to be regarded as normal. This was evident in the document, ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ (Grimwood, 2002). As such, Foucault had provided a significant insight into the power relations present in society. Foucault’s analysis indicates that power moulds subjectivity by generating fields of knowledge and objects of inquiry. Hence, power intrinsically resides within the interactions between individuals and groups of individuals. His emphasis upon surveillance has emerged as one of the best among the controlling procedures of disciplinary society. This has brought the critical influence of visibility to the forefront. The significance of visibility has been usually discussed with reference to Foucault’s discussion of the Panopticon of Bentham. Power produces visibility and helps in mitigating the difficulties associated with human agency, and this is all the more true of resistance in Foucault’s thought. References Băllan, S., 2009. M Foucaults View on Power Relations. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 January 2015]. Best, S. & Kellner, D., 1991. Postmodern Theory. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 January 2015]. Braverman, H., 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York, NY, USA: Monthly Review Press. Burrell, G., 1988. Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis 2: The Contribution of Michel Foucault. Organization Studies, 9(2), pp. 221-235. Cooper, R. & Burrell, G., 1988. Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1), pp. 91-112. Felluga, D., 2012. Modules on Foucault: On Panoptic and Carceral Society. [online] Available at: [Accessed 25 January 2015]. Foucault, M., 1991. Discipline and Punishment. London, UK: Penguin. Fougère, M. & Skålén, P., 2012. Extension in the Subjectifying Power of Marketing Ideology in Organizations: A Foucauldian Analysis of Academic Marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 33(1), pp. 13-28. Fox, S., 1989. The Panopticon: From Benthams Obsession to the Revolution in Management Learning. Human Relations, 42(8), pp. 717-739. Garland, D., 2014. What is a ‘‘history of the present’’? On Foucault’s genealogies and their critical preconditions. Punishment & Society, 16(4), pp. 365-384. Grimwood, S. M. H., 2002. Some Foucauldian Perspectives on Issues in Human Sexuality. Theology & Sexuality, 8(16), pp. 97-119. Hildebrand-Nilshon, M., Motzkau, J. & Papadopoulos, D., 2001. Reintegrating sense into subjectification. [online] Available at: [Accessed 10 Janaury 2015]. Kearins, K., 1996. Power in Organisational Analysis: Delineating and Contrasting a Foucauldian Perspective. [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 January 2015]. Knights, D. & Willmott, H., 1989. Power and subjectivity at work: From degradation to subjugation in social relations. Sociology, 23(4), pp. 535-558. Pearson, J. R., 2010. Exercises of Power: Applying Foucaults Conceptions of Power to Mazahua and Inuit Enculturation Events. vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology, 10(1), pp. 48-57. Reed, M., 2003. Organizational Theorizing: a Historically Contested Terrain. In: S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord, eds. Handbook of Organizational Studies. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 31-56. Rose, N., 1989. Governing the Soul: the Shaping of the Private Self. London, UK: Routledge. Seeck, H. & Kantola, A., 2009. Organizational control: Restrictive or productive?. Journal of Management & Organization, 15(2), pp. 241-257. Sewell, G., 1998. The Discipline of Teams: The Control of Team-Based Industrial Work Through Electronic and Peer Surve. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), pp. 397-428. Sewell, G. & Wilkinson, B., 1992. ‘Someone to Watch Over Me’: Surveillance, discipline and the just-intime labour process. Sociology, 26(2), pp. 271-289. Simon, B., 2005. The Return of Panopticism: Supervision, Subjection and the New Surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 3(1), pp. 1-20. Townley, B., 1993. Performance Appraisal and the Emergence of Management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(2), pp. 221-238. University of Washington, 2010. Review of Concepts up to 1/19/2010. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 January 2015]. Read More