Thompson Work Organisations A Critical Introduction (3rd ed)

392 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

forms of representation that make events such as the Gulf and Balkan wars difficult to grasp, as time unfolds and practices unravel, knowledge of what really happened on the ground does emerge into the public domain and becomes accepted as real (see Norris, 1992). Not only can we attempt to distinguish between representation and reality, it is fundamental to a healthy social science and democratic polity that we seek to do so.

When it is fashionable for social science to problematise everything, the focus is always on what we don’t know rather than what we do. Whether organisational theory embraces critical realism or not, the question of addressing the real is inescapable. As we demonstrated in an earlier chapter, many postmodernists deny that it is possible to make truth claims, yet litter their discussions of contemporary organisational life with references to ‘new realities’, though often with quotation marks to indicate ironic distance. In other words, such theorists presuppose access to the real in order to make claims about the postmodern world (Kellner, 1988). If truth claims are inevitable, we need to have transparent, shared ways of discussing and resolving them, however partial and limited they may be. Postmodern epistemology may be ‘liberating’ for the individual theorist; but it is not very useful for the body of organisational theory.

However, the uses of knowledge are themselves disputed and contested. This seems a useful point to move towards a broader consideration of relations between management, theory and knowledge.

Management and theory

If we examine the interaction between theories and practices described in previous chapters, no mechanical and few direct relationships can be found. As with the approach to theorising by academics, organisational theories are a resource for practitioners, mostly of course employers and managers. Taylor and Mayo, for example, were great synthesisers of ideas and practices in a way that management found useful, not just as a guide to action but as a way of clarifying and legitimating their role. Yet theorists, and Taylor was a prime case, frequently rail against companies that do not swallow their whole package but rather apply them selectively. As Chandler (1977: 277) observes, ‘No factory owner . . . adopted the system without modifying it’. This should come as no surprise. Employers and managers are pragmatists and, with some exceptions such as the Quaker-owned companies in the UK, seldom show any intrinsic interest in ideas in themselves, but rather for their ‘use value’ or, as one senior manager is quoted as saying in Gowler and Legge (1983: 213), ‘There’s no good ideas until there’s cash in the till’.

This is one of the main reasons why, as Watson (1986: 2) correctly notes, there will never be a full and generally acceptable organisational or management theory. But it is not merely a case of a plurality of competing perspectives. The partiality of such theories is inherent in their use in control and legitimation processes. It is in the nature of theories of and for management that they give incomplete pictures. The perspectives and accompanying prescriptions only address aspects of the basic contradictions in capitalist and hierarchical work organisation. Therefore, at one level both theorists and practitioners respond within a continuum that has Taylor’s minimum interaction model at one end and varieties of human relations at the other. Employers, of course, would like it both ways. Bendix gives an example of a

T H E O R Y, K N O W L E D G E A N D P R A C T I C E • 3 9 3

management journal in 1910 calling for ‘absolute authority as well as the willing co-operation of the workers’ (1956: 272).

To some extent they can do this by combining theories and practices within the continuum. So we saw in Chapter 3 that human relations did not challenge Taylorism on its own terrain of job design and structures, but rather sought to deal with its negative effects and blind spots. That story of combination to deal with different dimensions of organisational experience is repeated through every period and sector. It is, of course, the case that management is not only trying to deal with the contradictory aspects of utilising human labour. Variations in strategy and practice reflect broader problems, such as harmonising different functions and sites of decision-making. But the resultant difficulties in managing the contradictions are similar: different routes to partial success and failure, as Hyman noted in Chapter 8.

It would be wrong to give the impression that the choice and use of theories are solely internal matters. This would reinforce the erroneous view that organisational theories are a historical sequence of ‘models of man’, the new naturally replacing the old as grateful managers learn to recognise the more sophisticated account of human needs and behaviour. Ideological conditions are influential, as evidenced by the spillover of entrepreneurial values from the political to the managerial sphere. Selectivity is also conditioned by circumstances, involving a number of key ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ dimensions. At the broadest level, organisational theories interact with the political economy of broad phases of capital accumulation. Taylorism and classical management perspectives emerged at a time when the scale and complexity of organisations and of markets were undergoing a fundamental change. The globalisation of markets and intensified competition, particularly from Japan, stimulated major shifts in management thinking in the more recent period. At a micro-level, the choices made by particular companies reflect even more complex factors. In particular, the sector, with its specific product market and labour market, technological framework and political context, is a vital consideration. Each country, too, has its own unique configuration of intellectual, social and economic conditions mediating the form and content of organisational change.

But just as there are global markets for products, so there are increasingly for ideas. This process is enhanced by the spread of pop-management and ‘airport lounge’ books, as the success of the excellence genre is testament. Unfortunately it reinforces the tendency for academics to form alliances with sections of management around particular perspectives or techniques as solve-all solutions. So much ideological investment is made in the process that the chosen vehicle can seldom meet the burden placed on it: hence burn-out, cynicism and later fortunate loss of memory, until, that is, a new solution comes along! But why do managers so often become locked in this fatal embrace? This is an underdeveloped area (Huczynski, 1993; Thompson and O’Connell Davidson, 1994; Furusten, 1999), but part of the explanation is that as an interest group, management requires a means of defining and expanding its activities. Referring to the spread of interest in corporate culture, Thackray comments, ‘Culture is particularly seductive because it appears to open up a new frontier of managerial activism’ (1986: 86). This option is particularly attractive to the personnel or human resource teams of large corporations, reminding us that the adoption of theories and practices is also likely to be affected by the internal fissures within the managerial labour process. With the demise of the great practitioner-theorists such as Taylor and Fayol, and the growth of more specialised academic production, management is also in a more dependent position.

394 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

But the attraction is also a reflection of the fact that the meaning of management is inseparable from the management of meaning (Gowler and Legge, 1983). Organisational theories become part of a language and a sub-culture through which management tries to understand itself and legitimate its activities to others, even when those ideological resources are used in a contradictory and rhetorical way. The essence of these points is that regardless of the social influences, organisational and management theory has a level of autonomy and its own rhythm of development. Regardless of the cycles of interest in ideas and proneness to fads and fashions, theories have their own very real effects. And as they are grappling with genuine problems it is possible to draw positive lessons, even for those of us who want to take the process of organisational change much further.

Beyond criticism?

Some time ago, Lex Donaldson described a new generation of radical commentators as demonstrating ‘a supreme indifference in the fate of actual people in real organisations

. . . If there was a genuine interest, then this would indeed lead to wanting to know how to make organisations better’ (1989: 250). He had a point, but spoilt it by arguing that betterment required valid knowledge about the effects of different structures and the systematic elimination of ambiguity in casual explanation. In other words, to do the right thing, theorists would have to enter into the closed paradigm of positivistfunctionalism.

Nevertheless, critical scholars have had a problem about practice. In the 1960s and 1970s the view of management and rationality as neutral technique was replaced by an equally unhelpful hostility that failed to distinguish between particular forms of authority expressed through existing structures and systems, and the necessity for coordination and control of resources. Or, as Landry et al. put it:

There is a vital distinction to be made between ‘management’ and those people who hold managerial positions, and ‘management’ as an assortment of integrative functions which are necessary in any complex organisation – planning, harmonising related processes, ensuring appropriate flows of information, matching resources to production needs, marketing, financial control, linking output to demand, etc. (Landry et al., 1985: 61)

This is part of an excellent dissection of the weaknesses of many community and other organisations in the radical movements in this period. Frequently they rejected any form of specialised division of labour, skills and expertise, and formal structures of decision-making, in favour of informal methods and rotation of all responsibilities. The result was seldom democratic or efficient. Even those collective and democratic forms of organisation, such as worker co-operatives, that have proved more durable have also remained small in number and relatively marginal in importance.

For these and other reasons, we now have something of a paradox: interest in critical perspectives on management and organisation has increased in inverse proportion to the actual existence of any practical alternatives. This could be problematic in that a critique of theoretical and practical orthodoxy that simply knocks everything down is limited and dangerous. To paraphrase Gouldner’s comment for other purposes, critical social scientists have too often been morticians who bury people’s hopes. We believe that it is important for critical theory not just to proclaim the limits of existing

T H E O R Y, K N O W L E D G E A N D P R A C T I C E • 3 9 5

organisational forms and practices. Those constraints arising from dominant relations of wealth, power and control are real enough, as observation of the very partial progress of empowerment programmes or employee participation illustrates. But solely ‘negative learning’ implies an essence to work organisation under capitalism that denies it any significance.

The search for profitability involves innovations in technology, co-ordination of resources and utilisation of people’s skills and knowledge that offer positive lessons relevant to any more democratic and egalitarian social order at work. This is not the same as the orthodox Marxist view, expressed by the founders of the Soviet Union, that a socialist society simply ‘adds on’ the techniques of capitalist work organisation to new property relations. Those techniques rather have to be added to, rethought and resituated in a new context of a more democratic and egalitarian economy. For job enrichment or teamworking, however flawed, are also indicators of the great potential of human labour to create more efficient and satisfying forms of work. To argue that all this is mere superficial window dressing is to fly in the face of the reality that we all find some work situations more creative and rewarding than others.

A further reason for not regarding the worlds of today and tomorrow as wholly sealed off from one another is that there is much to learn from the existing practices of employees. As Brecher (1978) rightly says, there is a massive ‘hidden history of the workplace’ which needs to be recognised and uncovered. That history is based on the self-organisation of workers trying to resist and transform work relations. Admittedly that was easier to see when craft labour was dominant and many workers genuinely felt that they could run the factories better than their bosses. Old-style movements for workers’ control are no longer feasible in a world of transnationals, global production and semi-skilled labour. But there remains a wealth of untapped experience and knowledge in employees’ informal job-controls and patterns of organisation (see Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999), as well as in progressive practice in the public sector (Goss, 2001).

Finally, we need to note that what Donaldson identified as armchair theorising has been given greater intellectual weight by the increased influence of postmodernism. It has become more difficult to move beyond criticism in circumstances where more and more academics have abandoned belief in ‘narratives of progress’ or progress through any type of rational action or design. In the previously referred to article on ‘Critical Management Studies’, Fournier and Grey (2000) argue that a stance against performative intent is one of its three defining boundaries. Performativity is taken to be that which is aimed at contributing to the effectiveness of management practice. In effect, given the nature of existing organisations and the postmodern rejection of progress, this quickly slips into any practice. So, they make a distinction between legitimately invoking notions of power, inequality and control, and the illegitimate invocation of efficiency, effectiveness and profitability. Yet why is this illegitimate in itself? In any feasible economic relations, some organisations or practices will be more effective and efficient than others, though how this is measured and what action follows from it will always be open to dispute.

Productivity matters to employees as well as managers. It is reasonable to argue that HRM or equal opportunity can be positive for efficiency, as long as this is not the only criterion on which progressive practices are advocated. While a reflexive attitude is a feature of any critical approach, hyper-reflexivity in which everything is deconstructed or problematised, while solving nothing, is ultimately arid and self-defeating. There are still practices and a world to remake.

References

ACAS (1988) Labour Flexibility in Britain: The 1987 ACAS Survey, ACAS Occasional Paper 41, London: ACAS.

Acker, J. (1990) ‘Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations’, Gender and Society, 5: 390–407.

Acker, J. and Van Houten, D. R. (1992) ‘Differential Recruitment and Control: The Sex Structuring of Organizations’, in A. J. Mills and P. Tancred (eds) Gendering Organisational Analysis, London: Sage.

Acker, S. (1992) ‘Gendering Organisational Theory’, in A. J. Mills and P. Tancred (eds) Gendering Organisational Analysis, London: Sage.

Ackers, P. and Black, J. (1991) ‘Paternalist Capitalism: An Organisation in Transition’, in M. Cross and G. Payne (eds) Work and the Enterprise Culture, London: Falmer.

Ackroyd, S. (1992) ‘Paradigms Lost: Paradise Gained? Notes on the Discovery of Meta-Theory in Organisational Analysis’, in M. Reed and M. Hughes (eds) Rethinking Organisation: New Directions in Organisation and Analysis, London: Sage.

Ackroyd, S. (1994) ‘Recreating Common Ground: Elements for Post-Paradigmatic Theories of Organisation’, in J. Hassard and M. Parker (eds) Towards a New Theory of Organizations, London: Routledge.

Ackroyd, S. (1995) ‘On the Structure and Dynamics of Some Small, UK-Based Information Technology Firms’,

Journal of Management Studies, 32. 2: 141–61.

Ackroyd, S. (2000) ‘Organisational Constitution and Societal Structuration’, in S. Ackroyd and S. Fleetwood (eds) Realist Perspectives in Management and Organisation, London: Routledge.

Ackroyd, S., Burrell, G., Hughes, S. and Whitaker, A. (1987) ‘The Japanisation of British Industry’, Industrial Relations Journal, Spring 1988, 9. 1.

Ackroyd, S. and Crowdy, P. A. (1990) ‘Can Culture be Managed? Working with “Raw” Material: The Case of English Slaughtermen’, Personnel Review, 19. 5: 12–13.

Ackroyd, S. and Fleetwood, S. (eds) (2000) Realist Perspectives in Management and Organisation, London: Routledge.

Ackroyd, S. and Lawrenson, D. (1996) ‘Knowledge Work and Organisational Transformation: Analysing Contemporary Change in the Social Use of Expertise’, in R. Fincham (ed.) New Relationships in the Organised Professions, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Ackroyd, S. and Proctor, S. (1998) ‘British Manufacturing Organisation and Workplace Industrial Relations: Some Attributes of the New Flexible Firm’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36. 2: 163–83.

Ackroyd, S. and Thompson, P. (1999) Organisational Misbehaviour, London: Sage. Adair, J. (1979) Action-Centred Leadership, London: Gower.

Adams, J. L. (1979) Conceptual Blockbusting, 2nd edn, New York: W. W. Norton.

Adams, J. S. (1965) ‘Injustice in Social Exchange’, in L. Berkovitz, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 2, New York: Academic Press.

Adkins, L. (1992) ‘Sexual Work and the Employment of Women in the Service Industries’, in A. Witz and M. Savage (eds) Gender and Bureaucracy, Oxford: Blackwell.

Adkins, L. and Lury, C. (1994) ‘The Cultural and the Sexual and the Gendering of the Labour Market’, paper presented to the BSA Conference on Sexualities in Their Social Context, University of Central Lancashire, March.

Adler, N. and Bartholomew, S. (1992) ‘Managing Globally Competent People’, Academy of Management Executive, 6. 3: 52–65.

R E F E R E N C E S • 3 9 7

Adler, N. J. (1994) ‘Competitive Frontiers: Women Managing Across Borders’, in N. J. Adler and D. N. Izraeli (eds) Competitive Frontiers: Women Managers in a Global Economy, Oxford: Blackwell.

Adler, N. J. and Izraeli, D. N. (1988) Women in Management Worldwide, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Adler, P. (1997) ‘Work Organisation: From Taylorism to Teamwork’, Perspectives on Work, 1. 3: 61–5. Adler, P. and Borys, B. (1996) ‘Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive’, Administrative Science

Quarterly, 41: 61–89.

Adler, P. S. (1993) ‘Time-and-Motion Regained’, Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb.: 97–107.

Adler, P .S. (1995) ‘Democratic Taylorism: The Toyota Production System at NUMMI’, in S. Babson (ed.) Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry, Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press.

Aglietta, M. (1979) A Theory of Capitalist Regulation, London: New Left Books.

Aichholzer, G. and Schienstock, G. (1985) ‘Labour in Conflict: Between Capital Interests and the Maintenance of Identity’, paper presented to the 20th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association, University of Montreal.

Ajzen, I. (1988) Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Albrow, M. (1973) ‘The Study of Organizations –- Objectivity or Bias?’ in G. Salaman and K. Thompson (eds)

People and Organizations, Harlow: Longman.

Albrow, M. (1992) ‘Sine Ira et Studio – or Do Organizations Have Feelings?’, Organisation Studies, 13. 3: 313–29. Alderfer, C. P. and Smith, K. K (1982) ‘Studying Intergroup Relations Embedded in Organizations’, Admin-

istrative Science Quarterly, 27: 35–65.

Aldrich, H. E. (1979) Organizations and Environments, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Aldrich, H. E. (1992) ‘Incommensurable Paradigms? Vital Signs from Three Perspectives’, in M. Reed and M. Hughes (eds) Rethinking Organisation: New Directions in Organisation and Analysis, London: Sage.

Aldrich, H. E. and Pfeffer, J. (1976) ‘Environments and Organizations’, in A. Inkeles et al. (eds) Annual Review of Sociology 2, Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.

Aldrich, H. E. and Stabler, U. (1987) ‘Organisational Transformation and Trends in US Employment Relations’, paper presented to the Labour Process Conference, Aston-UMIST.

Alker, L. and McHugh, D. (2000) ‘Human Resource Maintenance? Organisational Rationales for the Introduction of Employee Assistance Programmes’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15. 4: 303–23.

Allen, J. and Henry, N. (1994) ‘Fragments of Industry and Employment: Contract Service Work and the Shift Towards Precarious Employment’, paper presented to the Conference on Work, Employment and Society in the 1990s, September, University of Kent.

Allen, S. and Workowtiz, C. (1987) Homeworking: Myths and Realities, London: Macmillan. Allport, F. H. (1991) Pattern and Growth in Personality, London: Holt-Rinehart and Winston.

Alvesson, M. (1985) ‘A Critical Framework for Organisational Analysis’, Organisation Studies, 6. 2: 117–38. Alvesson, M. (1988) ‘Management, Corporate Culture and Corporatism at the Company Level: A Case

Study’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 13. 12: 347–67.

Alvesson, M. and Billing, Y. (1992) ‘Gender and Organisations: Towards a Differentiated Understanding’,

Organisation Studies, 13. 12: 73–102.

Alvesson, M. and Billing, Y. (1997) Understanding Gender and Organisations, London: Sage.

Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (1996) ‘Critical Theory and Postmodern Approaches to Organisational Studies’, in S. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord (eds) Handbook of Organisation Studies, London: Sage.

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992) ‘Critical Theory and Management Studies’, in M. Alvesson and H. Willmott (eds) Critical Management Studies, London: Sage.

Amin, A. (1989) ‘A Model of the Small Firm in Italy’, in E. Goodman and J. Bamford (eds) Small Firms and Industrial Districts in Italy, New York: Routledge.

Amin, A. (1991) ‘Flexible Specialisation and Small Firms in Italy: Myths and Realities’, in A. Pollert (ed.)

Farewell to Flexibility? Oxford: Blackwell.

Amsden, A. H. (1992) Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialisation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

398 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

Anderson, N. R. and King, N. (1993) ‘Innovation in Organizations’, in C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (eds)

International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, vol. 8, Chichester: Wiley.

Andreff, W. (1984) ‘The International Centralisation of Capital and the Reordering of Work Capitalism’,

Capital and Class, 22: 58–80.

Anker, R. (1997) ‘Theories of Occupational Segregation by Sex: An Overview’, International Labour Review, 1366. 7: 315–40.

Anthony, P. D. (1990) ‘The Paradox of the Management of Culture or “He Who Leads is Lost”’, Personnel Review, 19. 4: 3–8.

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. L. (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Appelbaum, E. and Batt, R. (1994) The New American Workplace: Transforming Work Systems in the United States, Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Archibald, W. P. (1978) Social Psychology as Political Economy, Toronto: McGraw Hill Ryerson. Argyle, M. (1974) The Social Psychology of Work, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Argyris, A. (1967) ‘Today’s Problems with Tomorrow’s Organizations’, Journal of Management Studies, 4. 1: 31–55.

Argyris, C. (1960) Understanding Organisational Behaviour, Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.

Argyris, C. (1976) ‘Leadership, Learning and Changing the Status Quo’, Organizational Dynamics (Winter): 29–43.

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1978) Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Arias, M. E. (1993) ‘MNCs, Organisational Models, and Local Firms in Developing Countries: The case of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Ecuador’, paper presented to the 11th EGOS Colloquium, Paris.

Armistead, N. (1974) Reconstructing Social Psychology, Baltimore: Penguin.

Armstrong, M. (1987) ‘Human Resource Management: A Case of the Emperor’s New Clothes?’ Personnel Management, 19. 8: 30–5.

Armstrong, P. (1984) ‘Competition between the Organisational Professions and the Evolution of Management Control Strategies’, in K. Thompson (ed.) Work, Employment and Unemployment, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Armstrong, P. (1986) ‘Management Control Strategies and Inter-Professional Competition: The Cases of Accountancy and Personnel Management’, in D. Knights and H. Willmott (eds) Managing the Labour Process, Aldershot: Gower.

Armstrong, P. (1987a) The Divorce of Productive and Unproductive Management’, paper presented to the Labour Process Conference, Aston-UMIST.

Armstrong, P. (1987b) ‘Engineers, Management and Trust’, Work, Employment and Society, 1. 4: 421–40. Armstrong, P. (1988) ‘The Personnel Profession in the Age of Management Accountancy’, Personnel Review,

17. 1: 25–31.

Armstrong, P. (1989) ‘Management, Labour Process and Agency’, Work, Employment and Society, 3. 3: 307–22. Armstrong, P. (1991) ‘The Influence of Michel Foucault on Historical Research in Accounting: An Assessment’, paper presented to the Academy of Accounting Historians Research Methodology

Conference, University of Mississippi, December.

Armstrong, P., Marginson, P., Edwards, P. and Purcell, J. (1994) ‘Divisionalisation, Trade Unionism and Corporate Control: Findings from the Second Company-Level Industrial Relations Survey’, paper presented to the 12th Annual International Labour Process Conference, Aston.

Arnold, J., Cooper, C. and Robertson, I. T. (1998) Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace, London: Financial Times/Pitman.

Arnold, J., Robertson, I. T. and Cooper, C. (1991) Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace, London: Pitman.

Aronoff, J. and Wilson, J. P. (1985) Personality in the Social Process, NJ: LEA. Aronson, E. (1972) The Social Animal, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Asch, S. E., Block, H. and Hertzmann, M. (1938) ‘Studies in the Principles of Judgements of Attitudes: I. Two Basic Principles of Judgement’, Journal of Psychology, 5: 219–51.

R E F E R E N C E S • 3 9 9

Atkinson, J. (1984) ‘Manpower Strategies for Flexible Organizations’, Personnel Management, August. Atkinson, J. (1985) IMS Report no. 89, Institute of Management Studies, Sussex: Falmer.

Atkinson, J. and Gregory, D. (1986) ‘A Flexible Future: Britain’s Dual Labour Force’, Marxism Today, April. Augoustinos, M. and Walker, I. (1995) Social Cognition: An Integrated Approach, London: Sage.

Azjen, I. and Madden, T. J. (1986) ‘Prediction Of Goal-Related Behaviour: Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioural Control’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22: 453–74.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A. and Sonnenstuhl, W. J. (1996) ‘MAP’s: Labor-Based Peer Assistance in the Workplace’, Industrial Relations, 35. 2: 261–75.

Bacharach, S. B. and Lawler, E. J. (1980) Power and Politics in Organizations, London: Jossey Bass. Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1982) ‘Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science Review, 56: 947–52. Badham, R. (1997) ‘Towards an Ethnography of Politics’, unpublished paper, University of Wollongong. Bain, P. and Taylor, P. (2000) ‘Entrapped by the Electronic Panopticon? Worker Resistance in Call Centres’,

New Technology, Work and Employment, 15. 1: 2–18.

Baines, S. (1999) ‘Servicing the Media: Freelancing, Teleworking and “Enterprising” Careers’, New Technology, Work and Employment, 14. 1: 18–31.

Baldamus, W. (1961) Efficiency and Effort: An Analysis of Industrial Administration, London: Tavistock. Baldock, R. (1999) The Last Days of the Giants? London: Wiley.

Bales, R. F. (1950) Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Bandler, R. and Grinder, J. (1976) The Structure of Magic II, Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behaviour Books. Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. and Walters, R. H. (1963) Social Learning and Personality Development, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Banton, R., Clifford, P., Frosh, S., Lousada, J. and Rosenthall, J. (1985) The Politics of Mental Health, London: Macmillan.

Barham, K. and Rassam, C. (eds) (1989) Shaping the Corporate Future: Leading Executives Share Their Vision and Strategies, London: Unwin Hyman.

Baritz, L. (1960) The Servants of Power, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.

Barker, J. R. (1993) ‘Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 408–37.

Barker, J. R. (1999) The Discipline of Teamwork: Participation and Concertive Control, London: Sage. Barker, R. and Roberts, H. (1993) ‘The Uses of the Concept of Power’, in D. Morgan and L. Stanley (eds)

Debates in Sociology, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Barley, S. (1996) The New World of Work, pamphlet, British–North American Committee: London.

Barley, S. R. and Kunda, G. (1992) ‘Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 363–99.

Barnard, C. (1938) The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Baron, R. A. and Byrne, D. (1997) Social Psychology, 8th edn, Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon. Bartlett, C. and Goshal, S. (1990a) Managing Across Borders, Boston: Harvard University Press.

Bartlett, C. and Goshal, S. (1990b) ‘The Multinational Corporation as an International Network’, Academy of Management Review, 4.

Bartlett, C. and Goshal S. (1992) ‘What is a Global Manager?’ Harvard Business Review, Sept.–Oct.: 124–32. Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, New York: Free Press.

Basset, P. (1989) ‘All Together Now’, Marxism Today, June.

Batt, R. (1999) ‘Work Organisation, Technology and Performance in Customer Service and Sales’, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 52. 4: 539–64.

Baum, J. A. C. (1995) ‘The Changing Basis of Competition in Organisational Populations: The Manhattan Hotel Industry 1898–1990’, Social Forces, 74: 177–205.

Bavelas, A. (1950) ‘Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22: 725–30.

400 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage.

Becker, G. (1985) ‘Human Capital, Effort and the Sexual Division of Labour’, Journal of Labor Economics, 3. 2: 33–58.

Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C. and Strauss, A. (1963) Boys in White, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Beech, H. R., Burns, L. E. and Sheffield, B. F. (1982) A Behavioural Approach to the Management of Stress: A Practical Guide to Techniques, Chichester: Wiley.

Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Quin Mills, D. and Walton, R. (1985) Human Resource Management: A General Manager’s Perspective, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Beirne, M., Ramsay, H. and Pantelli, N., (1998) ‘Developments in Computing Work: Control and Contradiction in the Software Labour Process’, in P. Thompson and C. Warhurst (eds) Workplaces of the Future, London: Macmillan.

Belbin, M. (1981) Management Teams, London: Heinemann.

Bell, D. (1960) The End of Ideology, New York: Collier Macmillan.

Bell, D. (1973) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Bellaby, P. and Orribor, P. (1977) ‘The Growth of Trade Union Consciousness Among General Hospital Nurses’, Sociological Review, 25.

Benders, J. and Huigen, F. (1999) On the Incidence of Group Work: Results from a European Survey, EPOC Report, Dublin

Bendix, R. (1956) Work and Authority in Industry, New York: Harper and Row.

Beneria, L. (1995) ‘Response: The Dynamics of Globalization’, Labor and Working Class History, 47: 45–52. Benne, K. D. and Sheats, P. (1948) ‘Functional Roles of Group Members’, Journal of Social Science, Spring:

41–9.

Benson, J. K. (1977) ‘Innovation and Crisis in Organisational Analysis’, in J. K. Benson (ed.) Organisational Analysis: Critique and Innovation, London: Sage.

Benson, J. K. (ed.) (1977) Organisational Analysis: Critique and Innovation, London: Sage. Berg, M. (1985) The Age of Manufactures, London: Fontana.

Berger, P. L. and Luckman, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality, London: Allen Lane.

Berggren, C. (1993) ‘Lean Production: The End of History?’, Work, Employment and Society, 7. 2: 163–88. Berggren, C. (1996) ‘ABB: Local Presence and Cross-Border Learning within a Multi-national’, in J. Storey

(ed.) Blackwell Cases in Human Resource Management and Change, Oxford: Blackwell. Berkeley Thomas, A. (1993) Controversies in Management, London: Routledge.

Berle, A. A. and Means, G. C. (1935) The Modern Corporation and Private Property, New York: Macmillan.

Berridge, J. Cooper, C. L. and Highley-Marchington, C. (1997) Employee Assistance Programmes and Workplace Counselling, New York: Wiley.

Best, M. (1990) The New Competition: Institutions of Industrial Restructuring, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Beynon, H. (1975) Working for Ford, Wakefield: E. P. Publishing.

Beynon, H. (1987) ‘Dealing with Icebergs: Organisation, Production and Motivation in the 1990s’, Work, Employment and Society, 1. 2: 247–59.

Bhaskar, R. (1989) Reclaiming Reality, London: Verso.

Biddle, B. J. (1979) Role Theory: Expectations, Identities and Behaviours, London: Academic Press. Biewener, J. (1997) ‘Downsizing and the New American Workplace: Rethinking the High Performance

Paradigm’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 29. 4: 1–22.

Biggart, N. W. (1989) Charismatic Capitalism: Direct Selling Organizations in America, London: University of Chicago Press.

Birchall, D. and Lyons, L. (1995) Creating Tomorrow’s Organisation, London: Financial Times/Pitman. Bittner, E. (1967) ‘The Police on Skid Row: A Study of Peace Keeping’, American Sociological Review, 32. 5:

699–715.

Bittner, E. (1973) ‘The Concept of Organisation’, in G. Salaman and K. Thompson (eds) People and Organizations, Harlow: Longman.

R E F E R E N C E S • 4 0 1

Blackler, F. (1982) ‘Organisational Psychology’, in S. Canter and D. Canter (eds) Psychology in Practice: Perspectives in Professional Psychology, Chichester: Wiley.

Blackler, F. (1995) ‘Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation’,

Organisation Studies, 16. 6: 1021–46.

Blackler, F. and Shimmin, S. (1984) Applying Psychology in Organizations, London: Methuen.

Blair, H., Taylor, S. G. and Randle, K. (1998) ‘A Pernicious Panacea: A Critical Evaluation of Business Process Re-engineering’, New Technology, Work and Employment, 13. 2: 116–27.

Blakemore, K. and Black, R. (1996) Understanding Equal Opportunities Policies, London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Blau, G., Linnehan, F., Brooks, A. and Hoover, D. K. (1993) ‘Vocational Behaviour 1990–1992: Personnel Practices, Organisational Behaviour, Workplace Behaviour and Industrial/Organisational, Measurement Issues’, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 43: 133–97.

Blau, P. M. (1955) The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.

Blau, P. M. (1970) ‘A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations’, American Sociological Review, 35: 201–18.

Blau, P. M. and Schoenherr, R. A. (1971) The Structure of Organizations, New York: Basic Books.

Blau, P. M. and Scott, W. (1963) Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Blauner, R. (1964) Alienation and Freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bluestone, B. and Bluestone, I. (1992) Negotiating the Future: A Labor Perspective on American Business, New York: Basic Books.

Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (1992) Reassessing Human Resource Management, London: Sage.

Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (1998) The Dynamics of Employee Relations, 2nd edn, London: Macmillan. Boddy, D. and Buchanan, D. (1992) Take the Lead: Interpersonal Skills for Project Managers, London:

Prentice Hall.

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1994) ‘The Organisation as Theater’, in H. Tsoukas (ed.) New Thinking in Organisational Behaviour, London: Butterworth and Heinemann.

Bologh, R. (1990) Love or Greatness: Max Weber and Masculine Thinking –- A Feminist Inquiry, London: Unwin Hyman.

Bolton, S. (2000) ‘Emotion Here, Emotion There, Emotional Organisations Everywhere’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11: 155–71.

Bordieu, P. (1977) Towards a Theory of Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bordieu, P. (1994) ‘Structures, Habitus and Practices’, in Polity Reader in Social Theory, Cambridge: Polity. Boreham, P. (1980) ‘The Dialectic of Theory and Control: Capitalist Crisis and the Organisation of Labour’, in D. Dunkerley and G. Salaman (eds) Control and Ideology in Organizations, Milton Keynes: Open

University Press.

Boreham, P. (1992) ‘The Myth of Post-Fordist Management: Work Organisation and Employee Discretion in Seven Countries’, Employee Relations, 14. 2: 13–24.

Boulding, K. (1953) The Organisational Revolution, New York: Harper and Brothers.

Bowles, M. L. and Coates, G. (1993) ‘Image and Substance: The Management of Performance as Rhetoric or Reality?’ Personnel Review: 3–21.

Boyer, R. and Drache, D. (eds) (1996) States Against Markets: The Limits to Globalisation, London: Routledge.

Boyne, R. and Rattsani, A. (eds) (1990) Postmodernism and Society, London: Macmillan.

Bradley, H. (1986) ‘Work, Home and the Restructuring of Jobs’, in K. Purcell, S. Wood, A. Watson and S. Allen (eds) The Changing Experience of Employment, Restructuring and Recession, London: Macmillan.

Bradley, H. (1996) Fractured Identities: Changing Patterns of Inequality, Oxford: Polity.

Bramble, T. (1988) ‘The Flexibility Debate: Industrial Relations and the New Management Production Practices’, Labour and Industry, 1. 2.

Bramble, T., Parry, K. and O’Brien, E. (1996) ‘Middle Management in an Era of Corporate Restructuring: A Case Study of Retailing’, Labour and Industry, 7. 2: 79–102.