Critical Studies is initially based on Karl Marx’s and Sigmund Freud’s thoughts of the ‘institutionalization of power within the organisational hierarchy and the assumption that managers have a legitimate right to control others’ (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006, pg 266). The primary goal of critical theory is to properly understand and assist in overcoming the social structures through which people are dominated within an organisation.
There are many different forms of segments within critical theory. The first being the critique of ideology, which examines how different ideologies, can validate the domination of one group over another (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006). Within an organisation this is shown by how a group of managers will have shared beliefs and by using their control over employees have the ability to exploit them to do whatever they want.
Hegemony is another aspect of critical theory and is based around the ideas of Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci where he used hegemony to illustrate how ‘practices and values of a culture or institution align with and maintain existing systems of wealth and power’ (Hatch &Cunliffe, 2006, pg 267). This refers to how you are influenced by your parents where you are never forced into a decision but are subtly influenced into making a decision.
The third stream of critical theory is the three faces of power. This theory was introduced by Steven Lukes who claimed that the three faces of power are decision-making, non-decision making and the ‘ability to shape the preferences and perceptions of others without their awareness’ (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006, pg 267). Decision-making is where everyone has an involvement in the decision. Non-decision making is where those who have power do not allow those lower than them to be involved in the decision. The final face of power incorporates hegemony where for example managers will subtly influence the interests of workers so that they are thinking what managers want them to.
The labour process theory is the last form of critical theory, which was devised by American sociologist Harry Braverman. He believed that managers of production can control work by deskilling the labour force by job fragmentation and simplifying each workers duties into one task. This takes on the practices that were earlier introduced by Frederick Taylor in his scientific management. (Hassard, Hogan & Rowlinson, 2001).
The many facets of Critical Theory mentioned above all indicate how power is the central aspect of Organisational life. Critical Theorists refer to power as ‘a defining ubiquitous feature of organisation life’ (Miller, K 2006, pg 101). Power is always related to control domination and exploitation in which all these ideas are key in critical theories.
Miller (2006) states that there are three approaches to the concept of power. They are the Traditional approach where power is possessed by those who are high up on the hierarchical chain, the symbolical approach where power is a product of social interactions and finally radical-critical approach whereby ‘economical, social, and communicative relationships produce and maintain organisational power relationships’ (Miller, 2006, pg 101).
The labour process theory has been used heavily in organisations, which is creating quite an imbalance in regards to power within the workforce. By management having the ability to job fragment employees are not able to resist but rather obey their superiors otherwise their jobs will be lost and given to someone who doesn’t speak out.
Modernism is another perspective that illustrates how power is a central part of organisational life. To fully understand how it relates to organisation life, we must define it. The ‘central modernist assumption is that the work organisation is based on rational primciples of management, such as scientific management, and that the attainment of goals of the organisation can promote human progress’ (Gallagher, K Tombs, S Rose, E McClelland, B Reynolds, J 1999, pg 206).
Modernism has three underlying theories, which are general systems theory, socio-technical systems theory and contingency theory.
Biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy who states that a process is in a sense a system, which is made up of many different subsections, discovered General Systems Theory. These subsections can all be completed individually but in order for the entire system to be operational, the process must be fully understood (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006). The general systems theory focuses on the systems structure and not on the systems function. The theory states that complex systems do share basic organising ideologies regardless of their purposes (Boulding, 1956).
Contingency theory is still considered to be the most dominant approach to modernist organisation thinking. Contingency theory states that there is no one best way or performing a task but rather all factors of the situation need to be analysed before a solution can be identified. Factors that need to be addressed can include the environment, goals, technology and people (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006).
Socio-Technical Systems Theory develops the idea of employee interaction into the workplace in order to boost morale and productivity. Researchers from the Tavistock institute of Human Relations discovered that by creating autonomous work group’s employees will work much more effectively whilst being given the freedom to perform their task and work as a team with others.
From a modernist perception power is without question the most integral part of organisational life. Modern theories suggest that power is a fairly top-down structure in an organisation essentially meaning that managers have all the power and that when there is a problem that needs to be resolved only those with the ability to solve problems can do so. In essence employees have no input into the decision making process.
If an organisation decides to adopt a socio-technical systems approach then power is predominantly shifted from the managers to the employees. This is because the employees are more left to them to do their tasks without constant supervision and the ability to use teamwork to meet a common goal.
In regards to respect and obedience employees are mindful that the managers are the boss and understand that without them the organisation would not run successfully. Being a cooperative team member is vital to an organisation to run smoothly. The ability to understand what tasks need to be completed and obeying orders from superiors is paramount.
In conclusion, power is the most central aspect of organisational life. Without power in the workplace there would be no structure and employees would have no motivation to complete their tasks. Power in organisations need to be evenly distributed amongst managers in order for employees to be motivated to work. The limits of power and authority show that within an organisation there needs to be a balance of power, authority, respect and obedience. Manager’s needs to demonstrate their power to the extent that their employees perform their tasks but at the same time not to hold it over its employees heads. Employees need to respect the power balance and obey what their supervisors ask of them. It is for these reasons that The pervasiveness of power is the most central aspect of organisational life.
References:
Boulding, K 1956, ‘General Systems Theory – The Skeleton of Science’, Management Science, Vol. 2, No. 3, pg 197.
Clegg, S & Hardy, C 2005, ‘Studying Organisation Theory & Method’, Sage Publications, London.
Gallagher, K Rose, E McClelland, B, Reynolds, J Tombs, S 1999, People in Organisations, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Hatch, M & Cunliffe, A 2006, ‘Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives’, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hassard, J, Hogan, J, Rowlinson, M 2001, ‘From Labour Process Theory to Critical Management Studies,’ Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 23, No. 3, pg 339-362.
Katz, D & Kahn, R 1978, ‘The Social Psychology of Orgnizations’, 2nd Edition, Wiley, New York.
Miller, K 2006, ‘Organizational Communication’: Approaches and Process, 5th Edition, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston.
Seiler, R 2006, ‘Human Communication in the Critical Theory Tradition’, viewed 29th March 2011, < >
