Managerial Strategies and the Worker: a Marxist Analysis of Bureaucracy*

Goldman, Paul; Houten, Donald R. Van

doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1976.tb01891.x

Cited by 11 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, calls for increased attention to the historical 25 Besides organizational ecology, there were two other strands emerging around this time that evidenced a greater sensitivity to historical questions than most organizational research. Work on labor relations by scholars such as Marglin (1974), Goldman and Van Houten (1976), Jacoby (1978), Edwards (1979), and Burawoy (1979) was firmly grounded in a neo-Marxist concern with the long sweep of capitalism. And studies of authority and managerial control-inspired by Bendix's (1956) classic comparative-historical study of industrialization and labor, as well as by Chandler's (1962Chandler's ( , 1977 profoundly influential work on the rise of managerial capitalism in the United States-examined historical transformations in organizational control structures.…”

Section: Organizational Positions and Position-takingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bourdieu and organizational analysis

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite some promising steps in the right direction, organizational analysis has yet to exploit fully the theoretical and empirical possibilities inherent in the writings of Pierre Bourdieu. While certain concepts associated with his thought, such as field and capital, are already widely known in the organizational literature, the specific ways in which these terms are being used provide ample evidence that the full significance of his relational mode of thought has yet to be sufficiently apprehended. Moreover, the almost complete inattention to habitus, the third of Bourdieu's major concepts, without which the concepts of field and capital (at least as he deployed them) make no sense, further attests to the misappropriation of his ideas and to the lack of appreciation of their potential usefulness. It is our aim in this paper, by contrast, to set forth a more informed and comprehensive account of what a relational -and, in particular, a Bourdieu-inspired -agenda for organizational research might look like. Accordingly, we examine the implications of his theoretical framework for interorganizational relations, as well as for organizations themselves analyzed as fields. The primary advantage of such an approach, we argue, is the central place accorded therein to the social conditions under which inter-and intraorganizational power relations are produced, reproduced, and contested.Despite some promising steps in the right direction, organizational analysis has yet to exploit fully the theoretical and empirical possibilities inherent in a relational

show abstract

Section: Organizational Positions and Position-takingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bourdieu and organizational analysis

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Braverman, 1974;Goldman & Van Houten, 1977) have delineated the role that dimensions of classical bureaucratic structure play in effecting control: centralization establishes the domination of top-down authority. Specialization effectively prevents individual subordinates from attaining a holistic view of organizational actions, and thereby consolidates the power of superiors who do have access to the 'big picture'.…”

Section: Beyond Structure: Ideal Control In Post-industrial Organizatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bureaucratic structures emerged not only for the purpose of efficient coordination, but also for exerting domination over those lower in the hierarchy by those at the top (Cohen et al, 1975;Goldman & Van Houten, 1977;Weber, 1978Weber, [1910; Weiss, 1983). The much-vaunted supplanting of bureaucracy by looser, more-fluid 'new organizational forms' (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1993;Dess et al, 1995;Lewin & Stephens, 1994; might therefore imply that organizational control is lessening in the post-industrial epoch.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Structure: The Role of Social Accounts in Implementing Ideal Control

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to survive, the contemporary organization must quickly adapt to its ever-changing markets and environment. The methods of structural control associated with the bureaucratic organizational form impede such adaptation. As a result, organizations are supplanting structural control with newer means of control -the control of ideas. Drawing on and extending social accounts theory, the authors explore how social accounts are used as one method to help to gain control of ideas, lessening management's dependence on bureaucratic structures. The article exemplifies the managerial use of social accounts by reviewing the text of a videotape used by one organization in its attempt to influence workers' ideas about management, unions and their own interests in order to keep the organization union free. The authors conclude with a discussion of how managerial uses of social accounts can be resisted by workers. K E Y W O R D Sideal control organizational control resistance social accounts [We] have moved into the final years of the twentieth century with only the slightest awareness that the modern organization . . . has become the dominant force in our lives, shaping and changing our traditional values, and even our personalities, to suit its requirements. Modern organizations have influenced us profoundly, but so quietly that we are scarcely aware that they are our major agencies of social control. (Scott & Hart, 1989: 4) 1 1 2 3 Human Relations [0018-7267(200109)54:9] Volume 54(9):

show abstract

“…Within the past few years, Marxist scholars and activists, both within and outside academic institutions, have begun to build a Marxist tradition of studying work organization (Heydebrand, 1977). This tradition wi II apply new concepts to the study of bureaucracy, probably including a focus on the contradictions between the forces and relations of production, the labor theory of value, class structure and class struggle (Goldman and Van Houten, 1977). At the same time new methods should be developed.…”

Section: He Notes Thatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That theory is still in its formative stages. Those who are interested in my view of priorities might refer to Goldman and Van Houten (1977). Both that paper and the one by Heydebrand (1977) contain extensive bibliographies of other works building towards a Marxist approach to bureaucracy.…”

Section: He Notes Thatmentioning

confidence: 99%