Estrategias

In the 1980s, management writers tried to engage in a more sophisticated discussion of workplace organisation, noting the existence of power. Discussion of power in mainstream management literature is limited, other than when describing forms of legitimate authority. It tends to characterise any other power (other than legitimate authority) as illegitimate, disruptive, self-serving, subversive or undermining (Eccles and Nohria 1993:75). The definition of legitimate power as encompassed within authority, and other forms of power outside that authority, leads management to attempt to eliminate any form of power other than legitimate authority. Experience would suggest that this is not so easily done. Critical management theory has a more complex view of power (Alvesson and Deetz 2000) and tends to see it as hidden in the structures and processes of the organisation. It emphasises that these are not neutral or rational.

It seems to me that power inevitably plays a part in relations between groups of people working together. It is not a simple matter of authority verses subversive activity. It has both positive and negative effects and is used to define us in relation to others. It does not simply reside in one person and not another, but is fluid in and between people and situations (Foucault 1979). Whatever is true of power relations between groups of people – whether they can be harnessed, controlled and understood or not – power would seem to be at the heart of how organisations operate (Hardy and Clegg 1996). Any notion that simply views power as rational and residing in legitimate authority is seriously limited, as it does not take account of irrational forces at work in groups.

However, in the 1980s, the debate about power led (in part) to the trend of speaking of and describing culture in the workplace. Organisational culture is the study of that aspect of organisational life that is not an overt part of a measurable structure. Discussion of

organisational culture acknowledges that not everything that occurs in the workplace is rational and measurable and, in that sense, is welcome. Nevertheless, trying to describe and discuss things that are hard to see and measure has its critics. Culture has been difficult to define and some now say the study of organisational culture is passé (Palmer and Hardy 2000:117). Again the desire for simplicity and certainty may have led to the demise of the area of study. Of interest here though is that one of the most commonly used terms in the definition of culture is values. Writers have tried to use the term value to describe part of what organisational culture is (Peters 1993; Schneider 1990; Schneider, Brief and Guzzo 1996).

Peters (1982) claims that a ‘strong’ culture leads to high market performance. So in the 1980s, managers tended to try to change culture to improve performance. Siehl and Martin (1990) reviewed studies that attempted to match healthy organisational culture and financial performance. They found little evidence of a link between the two, mainly because culture is problematic to measure. Again, the exclusive focus on measuring does limit the possibilities. Economic rationalists would have us believe culture is not worth researching, because it cannot be replicated and made into a formula for others to follow.

The study of organisational culture was originally a means of expressing the less easily quantifiable measures in an organisation. It was seen as a way to get behind the espoused organisational values to what people really thought and felt. It became mainstream and linked to success in the market and was used, perhaps unethically in some cases, as a tool to improve profitability. Siehl and Martin (1990) conclude that manipulating organisational culture is a double-edged sword for managers. It does offer insights into the paradoxes of individuals working together. Yet it is not a simple solution to organisational problems. On the one hand, managers cannot uncover and sum up culture in one sentence and cannot expect to have significant impact in the short term on cultural change. On the other, they cannot ignore that myth, stories, different understandings, history and values do exist within the workforce.

The study of culture has informed current management thinking, which holds that the old way of organising workplaces (rigid boundaries, hierarchical structure) is no longer the best way to manage. New business pressures (technological innovation, savvy customers, globalisation, and the like) are requiring business to think more laterally and flexibly in

terms of structure. The literature talks about the urgent need to change the way we do business and to develop autonomous work teams, webs and structures that empower or are flat, inverted, have fuzzy boundaries and so on (Palmer and Hardy 2000:13).

Workplace issues can arise from within the culture of the organisation and as such are not easily dealt with by rational means. In the example of the City of Glenview, in part three,

The CEO at work, the history of the organisation loomed large in the memory of present staff and influenced their way of working even though the events were long past. Hidden within the concept of rational management is the idea, too, that the CEO can determine and dictate or change workplace culture. It is as if those being led are passive. In contrast culture is a form of power carried by those being led. In Glenview, the current CEO was mystified by the influence of the past on present ways of operating and found the allusions to the past frustrating and resistant to reason.