Managerial Work and Management Power - Essay Example

Managing Module Assignment - Essay Consider and explain Foucault’s claim by focusing on managerial work and management power/roles. Course Title: Lecturer: Date: “He who is subjected 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). Michel Foucault’s work has had significant influence in developing new understanding regarding power. The theories of the French postmodernist provide a platform for the analysis of individuals who apply power as a tool for coercion. Facult deviates from the discreet structures within which the individuals operate towards the notion that power is ubiquitously present, spread and personified in discourse, knowledge and ‘laws of truth’. He perceives power as dispersed as opposed to previous conceptions of power as concentrated and possessed. He also views power as conversational rather than virtuously coercive. The terms ‘power and knowledge’ are applied by Foucault to suggest that power is founded through recognized forms of knowledge, logical understanding and reality. This paper reflects and explains Foucault’s claim by focusing on managerial work and management power/roles. It discusses Foucault’s body of work on power and discipline. It supports Foucault’s approach withreference to published empirical examples. The paper also depicts the application of Foucault’s approach to power and order to management practice. Pfeffer (1993) defines power as the deliberate inducement on the opinions, feelings and conduct of people to achieve a particular objective. In the absence of power, cooperation among people may not be achieved and hence social order cannot be achieved. Power in organizations is manifest in leaders who apply different means of exercising the power vested in them to accomplish their goals. Foucault (1977) asserts that people in positions of power exercise it as opposed to possessing it. In other words, positions of power have been created in organizations as a strategy to develop infrastructure for enhancement of discipline. It therefore does not matter who possesses the power as such a person can be replaced by another and power in the organization will remain. Power forms the political structures of social organizations that operate to initiate the non-egalitarian and disproportionate relations. Organizations are established through human relations, which are characterised by inherent power (Knights and Willmott, 1989). Power is therefore not restricted to an individual but rather is engaged and implemented through a network-like establishment that is not fixed. According to Foucault (1980), power is in constant circulation and is generated instantaneously in different directions in a top-down and bottom-up trajectory. In modern organizations, the doctrines of power are found in a combined distribution of components in a plan whose interior instruments yield the relationship in which individuals are engrossed. Social order is achieved when a balance exists between these internal mechanisms in an organisation. Internal mechanisms of social control occur when as Foucault (1977) put it, prisoners behave differently with the belief that they are under constant watch but are not really sure and are not forced to do so. Legitimate power is considered to be the authority to act and control the use of resources for purposes of achieving particular goals only. It is limited in that the holder of the power may not exercise it beyond what he/she is mandated to do (Knights and Willmott, 1989). Foucault views power as constructive and creative in contrast to the Marxist perspective of repression whereby political power is inclined towards preservation of the predominant economic system as well as the control of those who successfully possess the valuable capital within it (Wetherly, 2005). Obedience by the subjects cannot be accomplished through repressive tactics. Rather, it is through its capacity to generate things that make it to be perceived as good and acceptable. In the management of contemporary organizations, power is expected to generate pleasure, develop knowledge and enhance discourse, all which are necessary in facilitating social order and discipline. Repressive tendencies result in negative power that is characterised by resistance, which should not be misconstrued as an attempt to disprove power. Direct opposition to power can be appropriately considered as negation of power as opposed to resistance to repression (Foucault, 1980). Repression originates from coercion, which is a rudimentary source of power that involves intimidation and punishment to accomplish the desired goals. Staff can be threatened with dismissal if they do not cooperate with those in power while stakeholders may lose benefits they are entitled to in an organization. Such strategies in the exercise of power result in apathy with regards to the accomplishment of organizational goals and may end up in demonstrations to resist coercive power (Wray-Bliss, 2002). Foucault (1977) highlights an approach whereby governments apply punishment as a tool to inculcate their programs and maintain power crescendos affiliated to particular principles. This is achieved through establishment of prisons and penalties through the judicial systems to ensure that social order is maintained. Successful governments tend to keep the public under control, which in other words can be interpreted as a strategy to maintain the power of the despot over the oppressed. Authoritarian leaders apply meticulousness and firmness to inculcate fear to enhance control. Martha Helen Stewart is one of the renown authoritarian leaders in the contemporary business world. An American business lady and journalist who established a media business empire that thrived through her authoritarian leadership style. She is described as demanding and meticulous. The late Steve Jobs is also regarded in the business world as an model of an authoritarian leader who managed to accomplish his company goals through conscientiousness and total control of employees (McKinlay, 2006). Punishment portrays the extent of force that a government can exert on subjects to prevent them from going against the rules. Foucault describes punishment as a generally accepted tool applied by humans to accomplish justice and is critical to the maintenance of social order (Foucault, 1977). Organizations develop manifestos in a manner similar to those of governments to enhance accomplishment of localized goals and no other. For example, Whitfield (2008) notes that World Bank and IMF are global financial institutions with government-like manifestos that help the executive to oversee international operations effectively. The less developing countries are obligated to follow the guidelines set by the donors (World Bank and IMF) or face sanctions that may deny them access to aid. Foucault (1977) distinguishes disciplinary power from the juridical-discursive theory of supreme power based on space and time. Disciplinary power organizes activities through space and time to a point where power turns out to be internalised and substantially invisible. This invisibility of power represents a shift from discernible coercion to meticulous disciplinary technologies and constant surveillance and scrutiny of behaviour. Such technologies and control regimes function regardless of and occasionally against the ideals articulated in legal bills. Disciplinary power results in a holdup of the law that is never whole yet is never negated. The discipline, no matter how regularised and institutionalised, in its functioning is a counter bylaw. Instead of humanity being left alone to observe the law based on what is considered by the society as good or bad, disciplinary power is enforced through constant monitoring, intercession, transformation and training (Foucault, 1977). Organizations apply disciplinary power to maintain bureaucracy, enhance reforms in prisons, monitoring the performance of employees and ensuring adherence to the set standards (Knights and Willmott, 1989). Pastoral power is considered ideal whereby subjects maintain self-discipline. Every person is placed within his/her own identity whereby a personalized law of truth is enforced, entrenched and recognized by the individual as well as others. Such power develops subjects from individuals (Luke, 1995). However, conventionality is not always achieved as the individual becomes one of the primary effects of power. Self-discipline is a tenet associated with power and leadership. However, the precept is not manifest in all situations. Humans have a tendency of forming expectations on the basis of circumstances under which power is exercised. For example, physicians are held in high regard to exercise pastoral power to save life based on their expertise, teachers are also expected to demonstrate self-discipline in accomplishing their daily tasks. This view is common in any noble profession where self-sacrifice is paramount. On the other hand, political leadership is faced with constant resistance and hence the need to fight for control. The body’s ‘political economy’ described by Foucault (1977) associates power relations to political venture of the body whereby the body is considered a factor of production that is capitalized in a system of subjugation. It therefore must be productive and dominant. According to Townley (1993), expert power is particular to an individual as a result of possession of unique professional knowledge and abilities that are recognised by the people concerned. Such power is indissolubly amalgamated with knowledge, both which are socially constructed. Power has the capacity to generate knowledge and both point to each other (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001). Foucault observes that power relations must be associated with a certain field of knowledge. Similarly, the various bodies of knowledge must presume and found power relations at the same time. Foucault further emphasizes the interdependence of the theories of knowledge and power. On the other hand, he contends their linkage by an apparent cause and effect affiliation. Rather, he considers them as dualistic components of similar social relations (Foucault, 1977). Townley (1993) also agrees that instruments of power are instantaneously the tools for the generation and growth of knowledge. In the process of getting to understand a person and the actual recognition of the individual, Foucault (1977) argues that exercise of power is accomplished with progressively sophisticated outcome to a point whereby the known individual becomes self-disciplining. His power/knowledge theory can be regarded as a tool that enhances learning with regards to social and technical practices that trigger and define the formation of principles. Power and knowledge therefore can be considered to be constructed as exploratory tools (Barratt, 2008). The development of power is disguised as a purportedly balanced approach to the creation of contemporary institutions and administration of truth. These assumptions form the basis of encouraging and extending the effects of power (Foucault, 1980). Power is expected to be the source of justice and equality in modern organizations. Members of such institutions trust disciplinary power to guarantee them their rights through a set of rules and norms that govern the behaviour of each individual. The rules and norms place each individual within a particular category within which he/she establishes an identity and individuality. This identity is not only recognised by oneself but an individual who is tied within that category also needs to be recognised by others as such. Such categories include gender roles whereby women and men belong to different groupings in a social organization and they would like to be recognized as so. Other categories in organizations include the executive managers who are regarded as the decision-making organ, supervisory managers who oversee implementation of decisions and the subordinates who implement the decisions. The various classifications based on rules and norms lead to the formation of a law of truth that turns an individual in to a subject. The two fold process of the control of subjectivity from within the individual and the external influences leads to the establishment of government. That is, it becomes entrenched in the subjects that they belong to a lower category in the organizational structure, which is controlled by a higher power without coercion. On the other hand, the top management recognizes the subordinates as so without coercion (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001). It is possible for subjects at the local level to set localised strategies for resisting power thereby making a positive difference that comes with a change in the impact of a range of institutions (Burrell, 1988). According to Foucault (1980), ordinary people can act as specific intellectuals to confront undesirable power successfully by virtue of understanding of their circumstances. They are in a capacity to take action within particular sectors at particular areas where their individual circumstances of work-life balance position them. Trade unions for example are among the localised strategies applied by workers in different sectors such as health and education among others to resist and bargain for better terms of service from those in power (Townley, 1993).     Foucault observes that the power/knowledge relations are accomplished through discourse, which he defines as strategies of generating knowledge alongside the social practices, procedures of partiality and power relations that are inherent in organizations. Discourses are regarded as greater than strategies of discernment and generation of meaning. They comprise the nature of the society, conscious and unconscious mind as well as the emotive life of the subjects that are to be ruled over (McKinlay & Starkey, 1998). In the absence of generation, growth and exchange of a discourse, power relations may not be developed, connected or fulfilled. Foucault (1980) also felt the need for definite economy of discourse whereby ingenuity remains the preserve of those in power and functions through and on the basis of power relations. The impact of power on visibility is manifest in situations whereby the subjects are individualized and put in a position of continuous Surveilance. It portrays a panoptic structure that represents the sense of powerlessness individuals every so often experience regardless of the devastating force of organizations such as workplaces or prisons. Such institutions have the power to control life within their boundaries generating a feeling that the subjects can not run or hide as there is nowhere for such. Ball (1990) also put forward the concept of horror in the relationship between power and visibility. He noted that power needs to be visible and moot. Visible in the sense that the prisoner will all the time see the tower from where he/she is spied on and unverifiable in the sense that he/she should never know whether there is anyone watching him/her at any given moment. The notion of seeing and being seen allows effective exercise of power as the feeling that ‘someone is watching’ becomes entrenched in the subjects such that behaviour does not change even when there is no one who is actually watching them, hence allowing panopticon to function spontaneously. This relationship represents Foucault’s concept of the prisoner and the guard whereby prisoners were constantly watched from a panopticon, which was a centralised watch tower. The prisoners knew it hence they could not engage in further crime within prisons (Fox, 1989). Foucault (1980) asserts that power develops and is maintained among the people with the greatest dominant discourse. Life experiences influence a person’s behaviour and interactions with others in all aspects. According to Foucault (1977), development of power through discourse is unjust and the human perception of power is questionable. Those who are deficient in knowledge in the society are looked down upon and eventually turn out to be the oppressed. Power issues are inherent in contemporary organizations whereby leaders are faced with the challenge of promoting equality of discourse that may cause subjects to rise up and confront the establishments that endorse oppression. On the other hand, employees are constantly faced with self-conflict whereby they continue adhering to the norms of an organization that they totally do not agree with. This is catalysed by the remuneration structures that develop a significant rift between chief executives and their subjects (McKinlay, 2006). Consequently, rewards and punishments must be applied to enhance compliance. The rewards must be attractive to the subjects even though they have no choice but to accept what is deemed fit by those in power. Similarly, punishments must be clearly communicated to ensure that subjects understand the significance of their actions (Pfeffer, 1993). The concept of subjectivity is manifest whereby individuals possessing authority to control discourse have the potency to rule over others and guide them towards a particular path or against a certain course of action. For example, the influence of Britain on her former colonies was purely a matter of control of discourse. British civilization was enforced on ignorant African societies that were compelled to abandon their practices, which the imperialists considered uncivilized. In contemporary neo-colonialism, the government structures and practices of former colonies simulate British systems. Foreign aid and grants are also influenced by the maintenance of such structures. Religion also presents an important platform to analyse subjectiviyty. In the case of a Christian who wants to avoid the undoings of satan, he/she must obey the teachings of Christ who is his/her master, not through coercion but because of the fear to renounce his/her will. He/she must remain the subject of a moral authority unconditionally (Whitfield, 2008). In this case, Foucault’s theory applies in the sense that power involves influencing the possibility of behaviour and laying out strategies promising outcome to rule by structuring the likely field of action of subjects. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of coercion but a tactical approach to include and exclude certain aspects of knowledge by the right authority to influence the thinking and behaviour of subjects with regards to social, political and economic context (Foucault, 1977). In conclusion Foucault sees a need for change in the human’s notion of power that makes them follow ideologies without question. The blindness to power needs to be dealt with through a change in thought to harmonize power dynamics for the benefit of all in the society. However, those who wield power and regulate communication will always strive to generate and perpetuate subjective discourse. They choose what needs to be brought in to the public domain and what should be concealed especially in education systems whereby managers legitimize discourse that influences the understandings of educators and students as well as their personalities by means of addition and omission of knowledge, ideals and expertise. References Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. 2001, ‘Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept of knowledge management’, Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995-1018. Ball, S. J. 1990,Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge. New York: Routledge. Barratt, E. 2008, ‘The Later Foucault in Management and Organization Studies’, Human Relations, 61(4), 515-537. Burrell, G. 1988, Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis 2: The Contribution of Michel Foucault, Organizational Studies, 9(2), 221-235 Cooper, R. &Burrell, G. 1988, Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction, Organizational Studies, 9(1), 91-112 Foucault, M. 1977, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Foucault, M. 1980, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, London: Harvester Press. Fox, S. 1989, ‘The panopticon: From Benthams Obsession to the revolution in management learning’, Human Relations, 42(8), 717-739. Knights, D. & H. Willmott 1989, ‘Power and Subjectivity at Work: From Degradation to Subjugation in Social Relations’, Sociology 23(4), 535-558. Luke, A. 1995. Text and discourse analysis in education: An introduction to theory and practice in critical discourse analysis. American Educational Research Association. McKinlay, A. 2006, ‘Managing Foucault: Genealogies of Management’, Management and Organizational History 1(1), 87-100. McKinlay, A. & Starkey, K. 1998, Foucault, Management and Organization Theory: From Panopticon to Technologies of Self. London: Sage Pfeffer, J. 1993. Managing With Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations, Harvard Business Review Press. Rowlinson, M. and Carter, C. 2002, ‘Foucault and History in Organization Studies’, Organization, 9(4), 527-547. Townley, B. 1993, ‘Foucault, Power/Knowledge, and Its Relevance for Human Resource Management’, Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 518-545. Wetherly, P. 2005, Marxism and the State: An Analytical Approach. NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Whitfield, L. 2008, ‘Introduction: Aid and Sovereignty,’The Politics of Aid. African Strategies for Dealing with Donors, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wray-Bliss, E. 2002, ‘Abstract Ethics, Embodied Ethics: The Strange Marriage of Foucault and Positivism in Labour Process Theory’, Organization 9(1), 5-39.  Read More