Critical management studies and organizational management practices

¶ … Theory Help You to Make Sense of Your Own Organization and the Management Practices in Your Organization?

Too often, individuals get an idea stuck in their heads and they cannot dislodge it no matter how hard they try. In actuality though, most people who can only contrive a particular system for working, whether that be managing or running an organization, and there is no interest in change. I realize that falling back to a secure position is comforting, but it is also damaging from a growth standpoint. And, growth is the object in business; that is, aside from the fact that making money is probably the primary concern.

But making money has led to some troubling consequences in the world as businesses have grown greedy and managers have become overly authoritarian and sure of their stagnant methods. The reality is that "managing and organizing are not isolatable objects of study but are always socially imbedded, economically engaged and politically disputable" (Letiche, 2006). The reason for this is that growth is also development, and development involves change. An organization of a manager cannot stay the same or the product they are concerned with will falter. But, there is hope for the manager who believes that a particular theory of production that he or she has remained true to is the only way to lead people, and for the organization mired in a rut of its own making. The savior is called critical thinking or theory, and though it has been around for a long time, people are just now seeing that the vicissitudes suggested by this approach may be worthwhile.

The fact is that many business schools are teaching students the efficacy of the theory and they are bringing those thoughts to the business world. "There is evidence…within higher education of…opportunities to rethink curriculum content and learning that recognize and value differing cultural perspectives and critical thinking, and that promote concepts of global citizenship" (Bourn, 2011). Because the business community is broader than a particular isolated region or nation, it is necessary to use a broader, more critical, perspective. As one author put it "by criticism and making theory discussible, students see social constructions of reality as being open to change, under development, a product of circumstances, embedded in culture and history, and subject to self-control" (Delbeca, 1999). Learning institutions are always ahead of the curve because they have the time to allow people to examine the theory and decide whether it is useful or not, but managers and organizations need to take the time to learn how they can become better through the processes of critical theory. The fact is that, not only can critical theory help me make better sense of the ineptitude inherent in my organization, it can also help me become a better manager through its process of critical thinking.

Review of Literature

Critical Theory

To better understand how critical theory can help or hurt and organization and/or management practices, it is first helpful to understand exactly what it is and is not. "Critical" is a much maligned word because people give the word negative connotations that are completely unnecessary. In this sense, it is a critique rather than a license to voice negative criticisms. Some people will believe that anything an individual has to say about a management practice or the way an organization conducts itself that regards making a change is being negative. Organizations worry about making change because most of the time this process costs a lot of money. Even when making the change will save money and grow the business for the long-term, organizations do not want to proceed because of the immediate costs. However, critical examination of processes is not only imperative because of the global nature of business, but essential to future growth in any industry.

The research gives several definitions of the theory that have proven why it this thought process is necessary for businesses. One author says that;

"The critical approach encompasses a range of different positions such as neo- Marxism…, post structuralism, deconstructionism, literary criticism, feminism, psychoanalysis, cultural studies and environmentalism… probes the meaning of sociological enterprise and is concerned with answering questions like 'knowledge for what' and 'knowledge for whom?'…engages in stimulating discussions and debates about management and infusing moral commitments into the practice and profession of management" (Akella, 2008).

Taking these three different aspects of critical theory one at a time allows the reader to observe how the theory developed and how it has become a useful tool for organizations and managers. The different disciplines that were engaged in the genesis of critical theory each have some counterpart in the business world. It may be difficult to see how, for example, the psychoanalytic qualities of the theory can impact business. The reason is that organizations consist of people who have different personalities and have different views regarding how the organization can be made better. Looking at the political, people, and place issues that are inherent in any organization it is easy to see how this new perspective can help prepare a manager or organization that has unhappy employees, a tenuous political situation, and is located in an area that has quelled production. The fact that critical theory infuses "moral commitments" into management practices is also key. Most companies realize that growth is almost impossible without a commitment to the environment, but recent developments in some overseas labor markets also call for companies (Apple and others) to be critical of how their products are produced.

Other authors have different takes on critical theory, but most remain positive about its application. When discussing the theory one set of authors wrote "We mean critical to suggest both the sense of questioning, as in "critical thinking," as well as in the sense of critical theory -- unmasking hidden tensions and meanings with a goal of emancipating thinking and action." (Holmes, Cockburn-Wootten, Motion, Zorn & Roper, 2005). The distinction made here is interesting. Critical evaluation and critical thinking are what happens as a result of understanding the efficacy of the theory (Stanton, 1993). As Holmes, et al. said though, an individual does not have to know the theory, just be influenced by the "sense" of it. The reason that the sense of the theory leads to critical thinking and evaluation of current practices is that an individual or organization can see the need to reevaluate its practices and must take a critical approach to all of its processes.

The research on critical theory also talks about the methods that are used by the proponents of the theory vs. those used by people who espouse other theoretical stances. Nathan and Whatley (2006) said that critical theory "takes a normative approach, emphasizing the possibilities regarding institutional and organizational arrangements. CT searches for models that are less controlling, less exploiting, less dominating, and more just." Many organizations in the global marketplace can be seen as controlling because it takes a great deal of resources to run such a company. Since it has a background in much of political and social liberalism, critical theory does emphasize, not only, change, but equitable change. Fairness is a large part of what organizations are trying to accomplish when they use the tenets of the theory because upon conducting a critical thinking exercise, it is easy to determine where the buying public wants an organization to be. Consumers are flocking to organizations that are more responsible with respect to employees, the environment and political situations (Pryor, Humphreys, Taneja, & Toombs, 2011). This leads to an exploration of the literature regarding how critical theory is being used specifically by corporations.

Organization and Critical Theory

Organizations have often thought of themselves as fiefdoms in the past (Pryor, et al., 2011), but they have had to change that position with more attentive global consumers. Many consumers look at the large multinational corporation and determine that they have been

"exploiting segments of the workforce; forcing employees into maladaptive personal responses; disenfranchising almost everyone; doing a greater proportion of damage to the environment; destroying or homogenizing whole cultures; knowingly selling harmful products and violating human rights; and undermining democracies and democratic processes" (Nathan & Whatley, 2006).

This may seem like a biased assessment (and in some ways it is), but the headlines show that many corporations believe that they are above concerning themselves with the ethics of their decisions. Greed is a powerful capitalistic motivator as can be seen by the companies that have lied about revenue streams (such as Enron and Health South) and taken advantage of workers and customers. The environment has also paid the price of stripped resources, endangered species of flora and fauna, and air/water quality that constantly needs re-cleaning (Nienhuser, 2008). Nathan and Whatley's statement may sound somewhat over-the-top, but, in actuality, large organizations have done committed all of those acts. The main defense they use for their actions is that they either look the other way while abuses are occurring, or they believe that the good their product brings to one segment of the global population, outweighs the bad it does to other members. This is never a good argument because, since the media is strong, someone will hear the outcry of the wronged party (whether that be human or environmental). Organizations benefit from critical theory evaluation because it allows them to look past themselves and the drive to make money. Critical theory makes the management of the organization morally responsible for the decisions that they make.

Management and Critical Theory

Management is the actual focus of critical theory (Stanton, 1993) because issues with management made it necessary for someone else to have a voice. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, a new reality was created for the managers of the multitudes that peopled the new factories. That reality continues today. It is that "management was lionized, even glamorized…Managers were seen as having some special insight which qualified them to pronounce upon a broad range of issues" (Fournier & Grey, 2000). The fact is that managers are no more special than any other employee of a firm, they just have the experience necessary to fill that position. The fact that they have the position though definitely does not mean that there ideas are always right, but that is what some manager believe, and they are backed in that belief by the organization.

This reality eventually caused people to want new management practices. Fournier and Grey (2000) looked at critical management theory in their research and said "It is in the growing use of management as a 'value' in the political domain, and the increasingly unrestrained managerial power in the private and public sectors, which constitute the first part of the background to CMS." CMS (critical management studies) was developed because employees had ideas but they were being suppressed by management techniques that limited creativeness. In many working environments from the industrial age, employees were not required to think critically about their jobs because the job was simple, mechanical and constant. The job did not change, so there was no need for new ideas. The manager of these types of factories saw the "big picture" of the work, and were better able to see what needed to be done than the workers. However, that quickly changed as technology reinvented the global job market. Now employees needed to be creative thinkers because the jobs were not simple and repetitive anymore (for the most part). The age of managers being omnipotent rather than partners had come to an end. But, unfortunately, many managers are still taught this system of supervision. This is still fueled by some management programs also.

Critical theory and critical management studies have revealed the flaw in the old style of control. "The theory's specific features include an appreciation of a plurality of valid opinions, rather than a focus on one correct or dominant perspective. CT…counters the development of oppressive management practices and movements" (Nathan & Whatley, 2006). The theory has revealed that the manager is not always right and that other opinions may actually yield results the manager would never have thought possible. The research reveals that critical theory is able to use all of the human resources available to make positive changes in organizations and management.

Practice Relevance

Even though the literature primarily supports the use of critical theory, there are some issues with it that require some examination. It is true that much of management practice has been authoritarian and dismissive of certain segments of society, the researchers who support its inclusion in the marketplace are themselves blinded by their own narrow perspective. Thus, it is necessary to further examine the theory in a critical light, such as it suggests for traditional management practices.

The primary problem that I find with the literature is the thread of thought against capitalism itself. The researchers seem to have a universal view that capitalism itself is bad because of the way that people react to the system. That could not be farther from the truth. Capitalism is an inanimate system that can be neither good nor bad, but is a method for designing markets and determining how monetary forces are controlled. Capitalism basically allows for the freedom of markets without regard to the consequences. While this may produce negative results many times, that is not the fault of the system itself. Delbecq (1999) said that students in business schools need to understand capitalism because of "its connection to power and wealth makes it vulnerable to hubris, greed, and selfishness" which is a true statement. However, some of the writers (Akella, 2008; Nathan & Whatley, 2006) viewed the system as the evil and not the people who were involved with it. Capitalism itself is a system that has allowed the world to realize more wealth than ever because of its attention to free markets. It is true that its basic tenet, that of making money at all costs, must be curbed through regulation and self-restraint, but the system is sound. The part of the theory that I enjoyed the most was its insistence that thoughts and ideas should not be limited. The notion that all people have valid contributions to make regardless who they are or where they are positioned in an organization. In practice, it would be organizational suicide to discount the good features of the capitalistic system, but it is equally misguided to use contained methods of management and organizational development.

This leads to a conversation about the fact that critical theory came from such ideas as those of Marx, feminists and certain psychologists. Marx ideas are valid in one definite respect. He was an advocate of the worker, many times at the expense of all else, but he seriously advocated for an economic system that would put the worker on the same plain as the manager. Again, researchers seem to take this as a sound doctrine (and it is in part) because workers have so long been trampled by the management and the organizational structure (Bourn, 2011). Looking at this argument from a practical standpoint, this may be why organizations have "flattened" management schemes (Akella, 2008) to the betterment of those firms. Individuals feel more empowered if they see that the organization takes their input seriously, and this happens in flat organizations (Akella, 2008). But one point to make on this is that there has to be someone who is ultimately responsible to the shareholders. This means that management practices should value the input of all employees, but it seems that some of the authors are suggesting that this input be preeminent. Feminists have concern for a segment of workers, women, who have spent much time in the past being "marginalized" (Stanton, 1993). Again, this is one of the practical aspects of the theory that has produced incredible results in the workplace. Women are starting to benefit from the importance that is placed on everyone's ideas, and many women have made great strides in the workplace. It is necessary to temper this with a critical look also. Such studies as those looking at the disparity between women's salaries and men's need to examine those with a critical eye. Although disparity remains (much to the shame of executives) it is much less today, and critical examination of pay structures have changed because of critical theory applications. Psychology has also provided insights into the behavioral aspects of workers which prompted the need for critical theory (Pryor, et al., 2011). Psychologists have used behavioral applications to help provide new managerial theories which can be helpful in growing an organization. But, again, it is the focused view of this approach that is troubling.