global business review 2008 akella 219 41

7/28/2019 Global Business Review 2008 Akella 219 41

1/24

http://gbr.sagepub.com/Global Business Review

http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/219The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/097215090800900204

2008 9: 219Global Business ReviewDevi Akella

Discipline and Negotiation : Power in Learning Organizations

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Global Business ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://gbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/219.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 18, 2008Version of Record>>

by Carlos G. Lopez on October 26, 2011gbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://gbr.sagepub.com/http://gbr.sagepub.com/http://gbr.sagepub.com/http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/219http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/219http://www.sagepublications.com/http://gbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://gbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://gbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://gbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://gbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://gbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/219.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://gbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/219.full.pdfhttp://gbr.sagepub.com/http://gbr.sagepub.com/http://gbr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://gbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/219.full.pdfhttp://gbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/219.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://gbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://gbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/219http://gbr.sagepub.com/


2/24

Devi Akella, Assistant Professor, College of Business, Albany State University, Albany, GA 31707. E-mail: dakhotmail.com

Discipline and Negotiation: Power in Learning Organizations

Devi Akella

This article examines issues of power and control in learning organizations. The emphasis is on understandinthe working environments of learning organizations, taking into consideration the intricacies of power ancontrol. It focuses on the relationship between management and employees and its overall implications the effective governance of these organizational forms. The paper critically analyses 42 in-depth interviewundertaken at a multinational situated in Botswana to deconstruct the democratic and participative modeof learning organizations.

GLOBAL BUSINESS REVIEW, 9:2 (2008): 219241

SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore

DOI: 10.1177/097215090800900204

Introduction

Globalization has led to drastic organiza-tional changes occurring within a complex,uncertain and turbulent business environ-ment. Organizations with the ability to learn

quickly and adapt to changes in the externalenvironment will be able to survive in themarket. Organizations now need to continu-ously transform themselves into learningorganizations and systems where individualsand groups engage in new learning processes.

Though the concept of learning organiza-tions and its relevance can be traced back tothe 1940s, it came into prominence only in the1990s with the publication of Peter Senges

(1990) book The Fifth Discipline. The learning

organizations literature has described tnew organizational forms either as UtoSunshine or Foucauldian Gloom (SnellChak 1998). One stream of thought descrlearning organizations as ideal workplensuring employee autonomy and empo

ment through the implementation of ocommunication practices, participadecision-making and provision of job sfaction and autonomy to all its emplo(Argyris 1992; Pedler et al. 1991; Foley 1Mills and Friesen 1992; Senge 1990), resuin phenomenal organizational performand success (Driver 2002).

The other school of thought describes leing organization as a negative ideolog

new workplace nightmare for employ

http://gbr.sagepub.com/http://gbr.sagepub.com/http://gbr.sagepub.com/http://gbr.sagepub.com/


3/24

220 Devi Akella

Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 219241

Learning Organizations are described asworkplaces where employees are exploitedand locked in psychic prisons, to ensure thattheir organizations are able to fulfill theobjectives of those in power (Coopey 1998).

Learning organizations subject their employ-ees to manipulation to protect the interestsof a powerful elite group. Therefore, insteadof experiencing a workplace of loving co-operation, opportunities for self development,autonomy and participation, employees oflearning organizations experience greatercontrol and more exploitation which is total-itarian in nature. Learning organization infact can be characterized as,

...a Hawthorne light bulb with a dimmerswitch, intended to stimulate productivityregardless of its chameleonic brilliance. Itis a Machiavellian subterfuge. It is a pimp,and the employees, the hapless prosti-tutes (Armstrong 2000: 359).

The language of the learning organizationsmasks the capitalists true intention of sus-

taining their regime through the collab-orative and creative participation of workers.Management adopts hegemonic controltechniques to seek the cooperation, supportand compliance of the workers under the pre-text of being concerned about their welfare(Akella 2003).

Driver (2002) reconciles these two oppos-ing perspectives to develop a new middle

ground perspective on the learning organiza-tions called the fluorescent light view. Thefluorescent light approach raises funda-mental questions about control, power andideology, such as whether an organizationeven a learning oneever be absolutely free

of control, power, politics, ideology andpainful experiences of its employees (Dr2002). Control in learning organizationexercised insidiously through shared vand values, common visions and cult

norms. Control mechanisms are culturnature and worse than the earlier traditicontrol techniques. Now power is exercover employees under the illusion ofoperation, collaboration and loyalty (Coo1995). This paper seeks to make a contrtion towards the fluorescent light apprby examining issues of how control is exein learning organizations and whether tmechanisms are absolute and totalitarianature. The paper asks the question whea learning organization is a form of magerial hegemony exercising dominaover employees mental, social and phyabilities with the support of empirical dence gathered from a case study undertain Botswana.

Origin of Learning Organizations

The concept of learning organizations cadescribed as the 1990s term for anotherof hegemonic control. The 1980s sachange from traditional scientific manment techniques to quality managementlearning organizations leading to learcapability in the 1990s (Ulrich et al. 199

According to Beer (1980), Nadler

Tushman (1991), organizations interact wtheir external environment to produce goand services. Existing turbulent and hiunpredictable business environments, sgent customers and demanding shareholhave resulted in the need for organizat



4/24

Discipline and Negotiation


to be more flexible and innovative (Easterby-Smith et al. 1998; Lank and Lank 1995; Dovey1997; Poell et al. 2000). The earlier form ofhierarchical bureaucratic authority systems,top down communications, rules and regu-

lations, and managers who monitor and con-trol (i.e., the appropriate metaphor of anorganization as an unthinking machinein which the employees are simple cogs)was found inappropriate (Lank and Lank1995: 18). Instead, in order to survive, orga-nizations had to concentrate on increasingtheir problem-solving capacity (Klimeckiet al. 1994) and their ability to create newproducts continuously (Ayas 1998; Datar etal. 1997; Senge 1990). Prahalad and Hamel(1990), and Moingeon and Edmondson(1997) believe the answer lies in the abilityof the organization to learn faster than itscompetitors. Stata (1989: 63) comments thatthe rate at which individuals and organiza-tions learn may become the only sustainablecompetitive advantage in knowledge in-tensive industries. Those organizations

possessing this capacity to generate con-tinuous learning and develop knowledgeas sustainable competitive advantages arelearning organizations (Nonaka 1991;Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Learning organ-izations are workplaces where people con-tinuously expand their capacity to create theresults they truly desirewhere new and ex-pansive patterns of thinking are nurtured

and where people are continuously learninghow to learn together (Senge 1990: 1). In otherwords, learning is a social experience, whichis dependent on trust (Coopey 1998) andopen interaction between individuals withinthe organizations (Senge 1990).

Therefore, to motivate and incrthe growth, creativity and developmenthe employees, management has to seekcooperation, participation and support oemployees. So far all methods of control

concentrated on fulfilling the physical essities and social needs of an employeeattain the greatest degree of leverage ortential, it is essential to develop the emotineeds of the employees (Senge 1990). Leing organizations believe that by linkingfulfillment of the self-actualized needorganizational employees with the objecof management, a common unified direccan be achieved (Senge 1990). The contropect in learning organizations focuses oncreation of conditions which help organtional members in achieving their own gbest by directing their efforts toward thecess of the enterprise. Rather than elevatorganizations economic objectives abovneeds and goals of the staff, integrawould lead to the recognition of bothorganization and the individuals n

(McGregor 1960: 49). Managers nowlonger just plan and let the workers exeInstead, the leaders concentrate on planand controlling the language and concused by the employees. Language andture are the tools through which the manment control and coordinate the activitithe employees (Simons 1995). This new fof managerial approach seeks to ach

managerial self-interest under the pretof personal commitment towards theployees. It is an indirect and a more comform of control where control is viewemanagement in terms of the end it seekachieve i.e., profitable production.



5/24

222 Devi Akella


Despite claims that a learning organizationis essentially an extension of scientific man-agement, it is primarily a justification for anew form of managerial hegemony (Brown1996: 9). As Scarborogh and Corbett (1992,

cited in Brown 1996: 101) state, learning or-ganizations can be considered as the appro-priate form of command and coordinationfor the new market conditions. Learningorganizations can be classified as one of thevarious change programmes initiated bymanagers whereby they rethink and reworktheir organizations to exercise total employeecontrol in order to increase their profits.

It is, in other words, possible to reachthe assumption that learning organizationscan be considered as another form of hegem-onic control systems. Characteristics of learn-ing organizations (i.e., learning strategy andculture, flexible rewards and structures,participative decision-making and open com-munication) generate and sustain an environ-ment of fairness, mutual agreement and trustwhere employees and management cooper-

ate together to achieve the organizationsobjective. But all the elements of a learningorganization can be symbolized as surveil-lance devices monitoring and regulatingemployee work and behaviour.

Framework of Power

Lukes (1974: 10) comments that theories of

power have been preoccupied with the morevisible dimensions of power relations asexhibited by individuals behaviour indecision-making on issues, actual or po-tential over which there is an observable

conflict or preferences. But it is also necesto study the less visible dimensions of powhich operate through collective forcessocial arrangements suppressing poteissues and averting conflict by helpin

shape mens [sic] beliefs and preferencesacting against their real interests. Lu(1974) thus argues for a radical conceppower where management can controlployee thoughts, feelings and emotionsputs forward his analysis by questionin

A may exercise power over B by gethim to do what he does not want tbut he also exercises power over him

by influencing, shaping or determininvery wants. Indeed is it not the suprexercise of power to get another or otto have the desires you want them to hthat is to secure their compliance by trolling their thoughts and desires (Lu1974: 23).

In other words, the supreme exercispower would be a process whereby it is

sible to shape cognitions, perceptions preferences to promote the interests ofgroup over the others. Such a process walso prevent conflicts from arising in theplace. Power is now exercised through inmation control mainly via the mass mand socialization (Lukes 1974: 23). D(1961: 164) similarly explains how leadernot merely respond to the preferences of stituents but shape preferences. An instof this control process can be seen in schwhere almost the entire adult populationbeen subjected to some degree of indoctrtion (Dahl 1961: 317). In the above situatipower is exercised insidiously by exclu



6/24



or manipulating the real interests of the indi-viduals to suit the interests of the dominantgroup (Lukes 1974). Lukes (1974) argumentis, however, not complete because he fails todiscuss the various methods through which

power can be exercised insidiously. In otherwords, he fails to answer how power is exer-cised within organizations. These limitationsare covered in Foucaults analysis, which issolely concerned with power and its sources.

Foucaults analysis revolves around hisinterpretations of power, knowledge andsubjectivity. Foucault (1977) is concerned withdifferent power mechanisms and relationsaffecting daily lives. Power, for him, is not

something, which can be held or possessedor embodied in an institution. Power is notsomething that is achieved, seized or sharedor structuredsomething one holds on to orallows to slip away (Foucault 1981: 94). Power,rather, is relationalbecoming apparentwhen it is exercised (Townley 1993: 519).Moreover, power is omnipresentit is pre-sent and reproduced at all levels and dimen-sions. Foucault (1977: 100) focuses attention

on the source and residence of power, be ita place or an individual. He also writesabout the practices, techniques and pro-cedures through which power comes intoeffect. Furthermore, Foucault (1977) believesthat power and knowledge cannot beseparated from each other. In fact, however,knowledge is usually gathered in a specificarea to exercise effective power over thebodies. Knowledge, therefore, can never bedescribed as neutral, detached and inde-pendent. Rather, knowledge is a system ofcorrection and control.

Foucault (1977) also believes that humansubjectivity is produced through correlative

elements of power and knowledge. identity of an individual is rendered knable and developed through the varstrategies of power. The main objectivthus rendering an arena or an indivi

knowable. Foucault (1977) makes usBenthams work to develop the eightcentury model of prison (panopticon) inmodern surveillance technique. The opticon embodies in an architectural formechanism through which power relatcan be enacted. It provides a means by wdirect surveillance can be undertakensupervisory purposes to reinforce the asmetry of power between the goaler

goaled or the employer and the emplo(Sewell and Wilkinson 1992: 274). The mof panopticon draws attention to the ustechniques of surveillance, which renderible or potentially visible the minutest deof individuals behaviour (Grey 1994: 4Control is then exercised over the individby effectively supervising and monitotheir behaviour. Even though the panoptwas originally applied to the study of

chiatric institutions, schools and prisonhas been effectively implemented as a veillance mechanism in contemporary orizations (Townley 1993). The panoptmonitors human activities on the bastime and space disciplines (Sewell Wilkinson 1993). For instance, the enknowledge of the behaviour of the indiviis carefully studied and stored. Thenmovements of the individuals are reguland adjusted in accordance to time. This broken down into its elements, the posof the body, limbs, articulations is defieach movement is assigned, a directionaptitude, a duration, their successio



7/24

224 Devi Akella


prescribed (Foucault 1977: 152). In otherwords, management, in the case of organiza-tions can actually specify how individualsshould act, the type of gestures to use andhow they should engage with physical ob-

jects (Townley 1993).This can be achieved by rendering indi-

viduals as objects of study and also involvingindividuals in judging and defining them-selves (Foucault 1983). In the case of the for-mer, the system of examination was founduseful to measure knowledge in quantitativevalues and categorize individuals in termsof abilities and skills. While in case of the latter,the system of confessions originally foundin religious practices (Foucault 1980, 19831986) proved to be effective in organizationsto gather employee ,information (Townley1993). Confessions dictate the individuals tocertain values, views and identities. The indi-viduals behaviour is monitored to encour-age development within these self-classifiedbehaviours. The panopticon, examinationsystem and confession practice take the forms

of performance appraisal systems, meetings,interviews and training programmes withincontemporary organizations.

According to Foucualt (1977, 1983) andTownley (1993) an organization can attemptto impose a total employee control. These at-tempts may lead to a blueprint for socializ-ing new arrivals into perfect clones of anideal and imagined employee, member or

inmate. It also attempts to remove all meansof employee resistance undermining man-agerial attempts to impose this blueprint oneveryone.

Western Multinational Corporations (MN

in Africa: A Critical Analysis

The Republic of Botswana, formBechuanaland, is located at the centr

the Southern African plateau. Botswana landlocked country with South AfNamibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia aneighbours. The national languagBotswana is Setswana, which is universpoken within the country, while Englithe official language used in business corporations.

The country with its stable governmsolid financial and physical infrastruc

and an encouraging and supportive invment climate, has become a platformcompanies hoping to do business acrossouthern tier of Africa. There are at pretremendous business opportunitiesmultinationals in Botswana, especially inareas of professional business support technical services including informatechnology (IT) for these services are in s

supply.However, the problems and consequewhich MNCs might encounter in impleming western management principles, ilogies and techniques within the contiof Africa has so far been neglected (wthe exception of Jackson 2004). In fact, thought has been given to the approprness of the ideology of organizational leing and learning organizations whic

being introduced into organizations in A(Jackson 2005). This paper seeks to examissues specifically concentrating on poand control aspects that might surface w



8/24



the western ideology of learning organiza-tion (with its elements of democracy and par-ticipation) is introduced into the corporateenvironments of Botswana by an MNC, i.e.,it seeks to examine the consequences of

adopting a learning organization model.The paradigm of critical theory has provedto be useful in unveiling the ideological as-sumptions, omissions and suppressed con-tradictions present in any discourse (Flax1990). Critical thinking involves an epistemo-logical perspective in which knowledge andcritique are intertwined (Harvey 1990: 3).Critical theory critiques scientific knowledge,which sustains the oppressive structures

(Harvey 1990). The author is interested indeconstructing the various power strategiesand control mechanisms within learningorganizations and, therefore, felt it necessaryto adopt a critical methodology.

Further the case study method is usefulin investigating a contemporary phenom-enon within its real life context and whenusing multiple sources of evidence (Yin1989). In fact, all how and why questionsusually favour the use of case studies, experi-ments and histories. Case studies make useof multiple sources of evidence, such as inter-views, direct and participant observation,physical artifacts and archival records (Yin1989).

Single case studies are eminently suitablewhere the case represents a critical test ofexisting theory or where the case is a rare

unique test of existing theory or serves arevelatory purpose. The author felt the singlecase study approach and the research tech-niques of in-depth interviews, secondary

sources of data and unstructured obsetion (as illustrated in Table 1 in the Appenare helpful in deconstructing the sourcedomination and exploitation existing wlearning organizations.

The empirical study was undertakenprofessional accounting firm situated withe service industry. The firm in this resestudy is referred to under the pseudoFinancial Services. Financial Services isof Botswanas leading multi-disciplinprofessional service providers in the areaudit, taxation, corporate services, busiconsultancy, accounting, property manment and liquidation. The firm was es

lished in 1976, primarily as a firm of certpublic accountants, business advisors consultants in Gaborone, Botswana. In A1996, Financial Services merged wileading multinational with its headquain the USA. Since then, in keeping witparent companys motto that rigidity brstagnation and ultimately leads to demflexibility leads to survival and succFinancial Services has been trying to evinto the model of a learning organizatThe firm presently employs around 130ployees and has offices in Gaborone, SePhikwe and Francistown.

Financial Services has gradually induced the various features of a learning cpany since its merger in April 1996. author found relevant evidence in the finew mission, vision statements an

information about its overall functioninthe firms organizational manual. Fostance, the employment manual of FinanServices reads:



9/24


10/24



the learning processes of the employees.They govern the organizations by control-ling the companys resources, information,company policy, learning processes andopportunities (Coopey 1995). The business

consultancy directors account effectivelysummarizes the above arguments:

Learning organization is needed when thehuman factor comes into considerationwhen the top management does not keepup with the latest organizational con-cepts. Now on the account of changes inthe market and heavy competition, people

are forced to learn continuously themajor objective is client satisfaction andprofitability. Okay, so if you ensure clientsatisfaction you will survive that is mar-ketability, clients will market you. Learn-ing organizations is someplace where thetop managements objectives are wellaccepted by the team consisting of profes-sionals and employees within their organ-izations as their own, by continuously

checking the organization process, up-grading the skills of their employees,checking the clients objectives and theorganizations ability in delivering goodsto the clients and contributing somethingto the society, environment. So that you area part of the total system as the individualswithin an organization should feel thatthey are continuously contributing but the

ultimate objective is the customer.The above account has linked up the envir-

onmental factors like market changes andcompetition with the need to generate learn-ing within the organizations. Managers, toachieve client satisfaction and profitability,

seek the cooperation of the workers, byphasizing employee empowerment schequality circles and job participation. focus has now shifted towards creating ditions which satisfy the emotional and s

needs of the employees (Senge 1990), buoverall objective has not changed. To ena marriage of interest between managemprofit objectives and the employees nomic and emotional needs, managemhas adopted a more hegemonic and sucontrol technique.

Surveillance and Disciplinary

Techniques within Learning Organization

This theme aims to critically analyze deconstruct the various organizaticharacteristics of learning organizationsteam-based structures, learning enviment, selective recruitment and servleadership, amongst others. It will focuhow control practiced by managemcrosses the office and professional bou

aries, entering the personal lives of theployees. The power which managementexercise over employee decisions regartheir appearance, personality and sonetwork i.e., not just specifying the waorganization should function but also an employee should lead his/her own liconform to the identities created and

jected by the organization, will be examiThe firm generates an atmospher

the organization being one big family the office a second home. For instancecorporate services manager stated ininterview,

We are like one big family.



11/24

228 Devi Akella


This concept of family is helpful in devel-oping ties among the employees. Employeesfeel they are working for their own family.They feel free to discuss their personal prob-lems with their superiors. Superiors become

more like friends. The line between office andhome becomes blurred. The office becomesa second home, superiors confidantes andcolleagues good friends. The atmosphere isinformal, friendly and so working becomesfun. An executive (Corporate Services) nowfeels no inhibitions in discussing or commu-nicating with his superior,

Oh! S ... (his superior) I just go over

and talk with him.

Another manager (Business ConsultancyDirector) further believed that:

nobody works under me, they all workwith me.

To further strengthen this bond of friend-ship and equality, management at FinancialServices, insists everyone refer to each by

their first names. An executive could addressthe managing director by his/her first namewithout any hesitation. An IT managerdwelled on this area,

Here I address the director and managingdirector as S and R. Everyone is on firstname basis. Its like a family.

Yet the main reason, as explained by another

interviewee (Audit Consultant) was:

It increases approachability and is friendly.

All managers are ordered to keep their of-fice doors open so that employees can simply

walk in to discuss their problems. Manaare encouraged to adopt a people orienfriendly, caring attitude towards the empees. Furthermore, the managers are requto greet their staff members, inquire ab

their work and personal problems. Theof manager had changed from a supervto that of a coordinator and facilitator. Asmanager (Business Consultancy Direcsaid,

I take up the role of a coordinator afacilitator. When I feel something isgoing well, I call them, discuss with thget hold of their ideas, in fact facil

and then say what is wrong, then mamends without them knowing. Let tvolunteer ideas and make decisions.

Managers are now assuming familyroles within the organizations. They hdonned the figure of a father who had to after their sons and daughters (i.e., subinates). At Financial Services, there are mpairs of such father and son relationship

found in the Corporate Services departmBeneath this family way of looking afteemployees, however, management in acity was pushing and bullying its employAs the audit manager said,

I always motivate my employees, psurize them, you sit down with themI see an executive leaving at 5:30, I wi

with the executive till 9 and make tachieve the target. I fix deadlines and pthem towards it. Sometimes it may noachievable but one has to test their cmitment. Its very strict but that is whas been asked by management.



12/24



Ironically, for the manager in the aboveaccount, motivating means pressurizing theemployees to finish work before the timedeadlines. He believes that he is helpingthem by sitting with them after office hours

until they complete their work. He ignoresthe facts that these deadlines may not berealistic and neither is the employee finan-cially compensated for this extra labour. In-stead the employee is given the illusion thats/he is a member of the family and so shouldhelp the company in its hour of need. As an-other corporate services manager remarkedin his interview,

If I have to go get work finished and re-quest F to do it, he will stay whole nightto do it, not because of me but because heenjoys his work. And no he is not compen-sated for it. But he does it for his company.

Managers are thus deviously manipulat-ing the employees to do more work with nocompensation other than just a pat on the

back. This, according to a branch manager,is enough for ones excellent hard labour:

At that time the support I got from my staffwas so good I could not have donewithout them based on the experience thatA has, the amount of input he has given isexcellent, he deserves a pat on the back.

Maccoby (1976) refers to this situation as

a psycho structure whereby employees fitinto the requirements of the organization. Thebasic aim seems to be to inculcate the themeof office as a second home and all employeesas members of this family. The management

informs the employees that, under the brella of corporate family image, theycocooned from the harsh realities withwarm and friendly atmosphere, surrounby colleagues who happen to be good fri

and supported by sympathetic, caring, ental seniors. The employee therefore emotionally committed to help his/her ily even though ultimately it is managemwhich enjoys the profits.

Moreover, the feature of team culture aciated with learning organizations is usin strengthening the bond of friendshipfamily values. But beneath this friendly temate cooperation there exists interpers

suspicion, rivalry and jealousy (Barker 1Casey 1999; Kunda 1992). For instancbusiness consultancy executive had a nber of complaints against her team memincluding:

I have problems with a colleague whunprofessional.

An audit executive hesitatingly explathat, in reality, behind this congenial atmphere there existed fierce competition andneed to perform better than others:

... constant competition now workingteam, and I handle project work (paconstant competition, have to do it to better than S.

Management seems to be aware of underlying antagonism. But interprets

positive competition and uses it to the advage of the company. An interviewee (IT Pner) remarked,

We encourage positive competition amour team members, we have incen



13/24

230 Devi Akella


schemes, performance related schemes toput members in competition with eachother. But it is not dirty competition.Everyone has the sense of being part ofthe family.

So, just as in a family, parents compare thebehaviour of siblings, their successes andfailures, praise one child in front of the otherto ensure the other improves himself/herself.In an organization, management createsrivalry between members to make themcontribute their best and give an optimumperformance. Management at Financial Ser-vices therefore had regular team meetingswhere the employees are required to confesstheir mistakes, doubts and successes gainedin the work allotted to them. The membersusually dreaded these sessions and inputtedmore hours to produce quality work for theirseniors and also subsequently avoid beingteased and joked by other team members.The team and its members became an ironcage from which it was impossible to escapeanymore. Barker (1993) and Deetz (1998)

refer to this as a concertive system wheremembers themselves monitored their ownbehaviour in accordance with the values andrules agreed by all members.

As revealed by a business consultancyexecutive,

I produce work, for in fact at the endI may be kicked out of my work, ridiculedor humiliated.

She further described her experiences at theseadvice sessions with her team members,

she teases me a lot and I am a specialist inmy field. In this organization you are onyour own you cant trust anybody.

In other words, the employees are cpeting with each other to gain the favoumanagement. Management had successgained control over the thoughts, feeland emotions of the individuals. Emplo

had subconsciously acquired the normsvalues of the organization. The firm alsosorbs the social life of the employees. Regsocial events are organized, varying fmeetings at the bar to participating sports event (i.e., football) to a luncdinner at a hotel. These gatherings werescribed by management as a useful medof meeting ones colleagues.

To further tighten the hold the firmcruits certain types of individuals whoonly possessed required technical skillsalso a specific personality and backgrowhich would enable them to fit intoorganizations culture and environm(Storey 1995). For instance candidates arlected on the grounds of overall appearavoice, quality, personal manner, confideexpression of ideas, mental alertness,

tivation, ambition, education and technskills. The author noticed during her fwork that employees, with the exceptiopartners and directors, were within thegroup of 22 to 36. Management obviobelieved such individuals could be absointo the family culture because they wbe in need of emotional support and bacbecause they lacked prior work exposu

Management also implements varperformance appraisal systems whereemployees are graded on factors like knledge of vision and mission, philosophthe firm, ability to continuously train andgrade oneself. Grey (1994) mentions s



14/24



appraisal factors like communication, self-confidence, co-operation, reliability, integrity,team working. The first step in a perform-ance appraisal system is self-appraisal, wherethe employee evaluates his/her own per-

formance in an objective manner. This pro-cess is similar to the practice of confessionsfound in religious practices (Foucault 1986).The employee is asked to reveal and assesshis/her strengths and weaknesses. This alsoenables management to learn more about theemployees, which is helpful in exerting atighter hold on them (Townley 1993). Incontrast, in an inverted appraisal systemthe subordinate assesses his/her superiors

performance. This is just to convince theemployees about the impartiality of the per-formance appraisal system. In the last stageof performance appraisal, the superior ormanager reviews the performance of the em-ployee on the basis of which s/he may getpromoted in future. In fact the performanceappraisal system, like the panopticon, allowsa study of employees, gathers informationon them and then regulates and monitorstheir behaviour. Consequently it forcesemployees to consciously modulate theirbehaviour according to organizational re-quirements. The employees are thus forcedto behave themselves because they are con-scious of being under the normalizing gazeof panopticum-like organizational controls.

Meetings achieve the same purpose.Financial Services has different types of meet-

ings, i.e., client meetings, branch meetings,formal and informal meetings. These meet-ings are not only useful in exchanging views,opinions and information but also in control-ling the employees professionally and men-tally. As argued in an interview with a senior

accounts executive, meetings are a formcontrol mechanism whereby the prosionals work and mind is attuned controlled:

Meetings help in the purpose of reviewthe performance [pause] there shoula cut off date [weekly or monthly] wyour performance should be evaluthen only you will be in a position tthat in case of non performance, stepsbe taken basically its a review of perfoance and we have informal meetingswhere we chat about our past perfoances, our views and opinions, w

orders the company gives we have formeetings are a review of performanceto be there, so if they are they can comeand talk about it with the top managem[pause] any problems are looked in tthe management so that the executivemeet the targets also, basically its wareview your performance and remoof hurdles which may hinder perfoance. Informal meetings are a way to dour mind professionally.

Such a system of reviewing is similathe examination process usually founschools and hospitals. In formal meetithe employees performance is evaluaquestions are asked and steps takeimprove their performance. The informeetings are helpful in assimilating

employees into the culture of the orization. These meetings incorporate the slives of the employees within the work enonment. The employees are forced to enin social relations with their colleaguestake an active interest in the personal li



15/24

232 Devi Akella


their colleagues. The employee is now com-pletely imprisoned within the boundaries ofthe office. Thus meetings are not only amedium of learning and reviewing but alsoof controlling and networking.

Management has linked up the rewardprovisions of an employee with his/herperformance. The employees salary andlong-term career growth become dependenton his/her overall performance. This furthermotivates the employee to work efficiently inaccordance to the norms of the organization.

Learning organizations are interested ingenerating learning amongst their employeesand training has usually been associatedwith the process of learning. Yet it is possibleto state that employees advancement andgrowth is manipulated and coordinated bythe training policies to achieve the organiza-tional goals.

In Financial Services, at the commence-ment of each year (or a twelve month period),the partners and directors (or principals)hold a meeting where the organizations

overall annual objectives are determined. Onthe basis of this each professionals target isallotted. As explained by the tax manager,It all starts with the firms objectives andthen it filters down in terms of both targetsso the firm will say if next year we want todo ten per cent more business than last year.

Each employee now has to acquire newskills, knowledge and develop new contacts

both within and outside the firm to generatethat amount of income. All professionalshave to first identify their learning needs andthen decide which training programs aresuitable to their needs. In the words of thetax manager:

So the process works in that way, identify your objectives, then you set yobjectives and look to see what traiobjectives there are, to meet those obives and then you look to see whe

these training needs can be satisfiedternally (within the firm) or extern(outside the firm) if these can be satisinternally you book yourself to a cosame in case of externally.

This technique outwardly gives the ployee the impression that s/he has theautonomy to plan his/her career. In reait is management, which specifies the

of skills and knowledge to be acquired. assures cloning of employees who posspecific skills, attitudes and behaviour tr

It is therefore plausible to argue thadisciplinary techniques implemented wlearning organizations are able to exerpower over the employees physical, meemotional and social abilities. The emplis chained to the organization and its vaand beliefs. Furthermore, s/he is trappe

to upholding the image of the compunder the illusion of being a member loving and caring family firm. These obsetions lead to the assumption that the conpracticed is absolute. The next theme lointo this aspect.

Resistance Strategies in Learning Organizat

According to Gabriel (1999) the meanin

resistance is dependent on the researcherhow s/he interprets the definition of reance. The author believes that invisibiliresistance may not necessarily mean lacresistance. In fact, any form of spontaneunsupervised actions occurring within



16/24



panoptic gaze can also be classified as resist-ance and misbehaviour (Fineman andGabriel 1996; Fineman and Sturdy 1997;Gabriel 1999; Thompson and Ackroyd1995). For instance at the firm, resistance

practiced was not an overt, open and frontalattack. Instead it occurred in the form ofverbal disagreements, frustrations with man-agerial policies, back stabbing and psycho-logical withdrawal i.e., employees wererebelling and conforming simultaneously.For instance, when the interviewer, an auditexecutive remarked positively to an execu-tive about his managerial style, he eagerlycorrected,

I think [pause] I learned it from my pre-vious firm, my articles. There the man-agers, the partners used to come and sitwith us. I was very comfortable. I felt therewere no limits where I cant I felt at ease.There are companies where you reallycant approach managers and ask ques-tions, they might feel it is really stupid butI felt it was not so in my previous organ-

ization. I liked this way.In other words, the executive in the above

quote means that the firm does not followsuch an open and equal communication pol-icy. Thus the executive is indirectly criticizinghis company and its policies. Similarly, an-other interviewee, an audit executive sarcast-ically questioned when asked about theorganizations mission,

No, I havent heard about any mission orvision. In fact what mission? What is it?

In the above account, the interviewee re-veals that, as far as he is concerned, theemployees are not involved in the develop-

ment of the companys mission and poliAnother audit manager further clarifiedpoint by commenting,

Boss will tell you what to do and whaexpects, there is no proper coordin

functioning.

He further commented on this environmsaying,

Each month you are watched [pause]month you are asked questions, secmonth, third month [pause] sooner will be thrown out.

The above quotations reveal the frutions, anger and depression experiencethe employees i.e., the feeling of always bunder pressure, competing with each owanting to participate in the organizatidecision making.

There emerges a clear division betweenlabour and management. The formercomes dissatisfied with the latters wafunctioning and policies. Some, as in

above cases, showed their resistance byticizing and mocking the practices of magement. Gabriel (1999) refers to thipsychological withdrawal. For instanccorporate services executive stated,

So I am not bothered much, I work soffice hours and go home to my baby

She further continued,

Here I just work office hours and comy salary.

The employee in the above case remherself that it is just a job. By portrayilack of interest, she effectively segreg



17/24

234 Devi Akella


herself from the firm. Similarly, another ex-ecutive (Business Consultancy) commented,

You know the structure? Who cares,I know my superior, my department andwhere to collect my salary.

In the above interview quote the executiveis externally conforming to the firms normsand values. But in reality she is ridiculing theorganization and its management. Simul-taneously she withdraws by saying she isonly interested in her salary. Compliance anddissent are taking place at the same time.

Fineman and Gabriel (1996: 87) give an

example of such a situation where peoplemay be rebelling even as they appear to beconforming:

Pupils who wear the regulation uniformmay be conforming to the rules, but byleaving the top shirt button undone, theyexpress their resistance to them. Com-pliance and resistance are not either/or re-sponses. Orders may be obeyed willingly

or unwillingly: they may equally be obeyedgrudgingly, inaccurately, ritualistically orsarcastically. In all of these cases, com-pliance and resistance can coexist in thesame form of behaviour.

Gabriel (1999) cites examples of how em-ployees may abuse company accounts, cor-porate hospitality and business travel orwear non-uniform types of dress to work i.e.,

all forms of resistance which are marginal,making them less accessible to the controllinggaze (1999: 197).

Thus, one can summarize that employeesare aware of the control system and its unfair-ness. They show their resistance by openly

criticizing and airing their frustrations agthe management in front of outsiders the author). Therefore, the power exercby the management is not absolute andither are learning organizations places w

there is employee participation, cooperaempowerment and mutual dialogue betwmanagement and employees.

Negotiation in Learning Organizations

The presence of resistance in this study tradicts Foucaults (1980) interpretationpower: that an individual is not merelypendent on power nor is s/he outside i

instead s/he is an actual product of poTherefore, power is absolute and therebe no question of resistance. As Gidd(1981: 158) argues, even those subjecpower of dominant groups are themseknowledgeable human agents who reblunt or actively alter the conditions othat seeks to thrust upon them. Thexactly what is taking place within Finan

Services. Employees are aware of the unness of the control systems and praccovert resistance.

It seems as if prisoners are being survewho have already and for independentsons decided to be docile (Grey 1994: 4This could be attributed to the link betwlong-term career advancement and conmance to the norms and values of the orization. An audit partner at Financial Serv

remarked,

I joined as an employee and have cup as a partner. One is not denied anportunity here if you are willing to an interest in your career.



18/24



The employees in Financial Services haverealized that conforming to the demands ofmanagement would mean an opportunity inthe future to earn dizzying salaries and enjoymassive fringe benefits. In fact, the audit

manager focused on this aspect in his inter-view, saying,

By working for three years you will notbe benefited, you will receive only salaryand perks, car and house will be providedby the company [pause] when managerslevel is reached [pause] in five/six years.

Career and money prospects could thusinfluence the identity and role adopted bythe employees within learning organizations.

Conclusion

To conclude, the empirical analysis suggeststhat management in learning organizationsto effectively coordinate and organize thework of employees implements various sur-veillance techniques. But, unlike previous

direct and despotic control measures (thetechniques prescribed by the so-called sci-entific management), in case of learningorganizations the control is extended overthe professional, personal and intimate livesof the employees. Corporate clones who aresaturated with the firms values, ideologiesand beliefs can be developed through dis-ciplinary practices like learning culture, per-formance appraisal and reward systems, andopen communication through formal andinformal meetings. This study further sug-gests that employees are aware of the variouscontrol measures and are antagonistic towardsthem. In fact, the employees vent their angerand frustrations by ridiculing, mocking and

contradicting the statements made by magement. This can be treated as a formresistance although it is not as violenstrikes and ghettos practiced within facto

Employees consciously modulate th

selves to the requirements of the disciplipractices imposed by the managementthe surface, the employees voluntarily mit to managements golden handcuffs. simultaneously, they insidiously resist magement by mocking and ridiculing thganization to outsiders. It is, in fact, ironithe image of a perfect family where the dren fight and rebel against their parentsin the end always submit and surrend

the parental authority and guidance. Insense, learning organizations can bescribed as ideal working places but withsupport and consent of the employees. Magement deliberately creates such an enonment to accumulate profits withcooperation of the employees. Emplowillingly uphold this facade to achieve town career objectives. It is this ritual gof hypocrisy enacted by the management

employees which sustains the democenvironments advertised by the learnorganizations.

This paper effectively argues for theistence of power and control which leadpainful employee experiences, within a leing organization. It also provides pracinsights about problems which could owhen the western ideology of learnorganizations is introduced in the Afrcontinent with different cultural, histoand economic frameworks. The study vides insights into how a failure to apprethe impact of cultural dynamics on the wing of local institutions could hinder thevelopment of effective governance structu



19/24

236 Devi Akella


This, however, is a limited contribution andtherefore further research is essential to fullycomprehend the cross-cultural influences onmanagement theory and practices and itsconsequences. It is also necessary to under-

stand to what extend any cross-cultural stud-ies undertaken in Africa are applicable

globally across other developing countIt is also essential to improve and modifyconceptual frameworks, analytical toolsmethodological perspectives developethis paper, and to further investigate and

pand the propositions and insights gafrom this study.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, H. 2000. The Learning Organization:

Changed Means to an Unchanged End, Organiza-

tion, 7(2): 35561.

Akella, D. 2003. Unlearning the Fifth Discipline: Power,

Politics and Control. New Delhi: New SagePublications.

Argyris, C. 1992. Organizational Learning. Oxford:Blackwell.

Ayas, K. 1998. Project Design for Learning and Innov-ation: Lessons Learnt from Action Research in an

Aircraft Manufacturing Company, in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds), Organ-

izational Learning and the Learning Organization:Developments in Theory and Practice. London: Sage

Publications.

Barker, D. 1993. Tightening the Iron Cage: ConcertiveControl in Self-managing Teams,Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 38(2): 40837.

Beer, M. 1980. Organization Change and Development: ASystems View. Santa Monica: Goodyear.

Brown, D. 1996. The Essences of the Fifth Discipline:Or Where Does Senge Stand to View the World,

Systems Research, 13(2): 91107.Casey, C. 1999. Come Join Our Family: Discipline and

Integration in Corporate Organizational Culture,

Human Relations, 52(2): 15576.

Coopey, J. 1995. The Learning Organization: Power,Politics and Ideology,Management Learning, 26(2):193213.

. 1998. Learning to Trust and Trusting to Learn:A Role for Radical Theatre, Management Learning,

29(3): 36582.

Dahl, R.A. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Powan American city. London: Yale University Pre

Datar, S., C. Jordan, S. Kekre, S. Rajiv and K. Sriniv1997. New Product Development and time to

ket,Management Science, 43(4): 45262.Deetz, S. 1998. Discursive Formations, StrateSubordination and Self-Surveillance in A. McKand K. Stanley. Foucault, Management and Oization. London: Sage Publications.

Dovey, K. 1997. The Learning Organization anOrganization of Learning: Power, Transformand Search for Form in Learning OrganizatManagement Learning, 28(3): 33149.

Driver, M. 2002. The Learning OrganizaFoucauldian Gloom or Utopian Sunshine?HRelations, 55(1): 3343.

Easterby-Smith, M., R. Snell and S. Gheradi. 199ganizational learning: Diverging CommunitPractice,Management Learning, 29(3): 25972

Fineman, S. and Y. Gabriel. 1996. Experiencing Oizations. London: Sage Publications.

Fineman, S. and A. Sturdy. 1997. Struggles for thetrol Affect, Paper presented at the 16th Inational Labor Conference, Edinburgh.

Flax, J. 1990. Thinking Fragments. Berkeley, CA:versity of California Press.

Foley, G. 1994. Adult Education and Capitalis

organization, Studies in the Education of A26(2): 12143.

Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. LonPenguin.

. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviewother Writings 19721977. Brighton: Harvester B



20/24



Foucault, M. 1981. The History of Sexuality: The Willto Knowledge, Vol. 1. London: Penguin.

. 1983. The Subject and Power, in L. Dreyfusand P. Rainbow (eds). Michel Foucault BeyondStructuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. 1986. Death and the Labyrinth: The Worldof Raymond Roussel. London: Athlone.Gabriel, Y. 1999. Beyond Happy Families: A Critical

Revaluation of the Control-resistance-identity Tri-angle, Human Relations, 52(2): 17999.

Giddens, A. 1981. The Class Structure of the AdvancedSocieties. London: Hutchinson.

Grey, C. 1994. Career as a Project of the Self and LaborProcess Discipline, Sociology, 28(2): 47997.

Harvey, L. 1990. Critical Social Research. London: UnwinHyman.

Jackson, T. 2004. Management and Change in Africa: ACross-cultural Perspective. London: Routledge.

Klimecki, R., G.J.B. Probst and P. Eberl. 1994.Entwicklungsorientiertes Management. Stuttgart:Schaeffer-Poeschel.

Kunda, G. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Com-mitment in a High tech Corporation. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.

Lank, A.G. and E.A. Lank. 1995. Legitimizing the GutFeel: The Role of Institution in Business, Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 10(5): 1823.

Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.

Maccoby, M. 1976. The Gamesman. New York: Simonand Schuster.

McGregor, D. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Mills, D. and B. Friesen. 1992. The Learning Organiza-tion, European Management Journal, 10(2): 14655.

Moingeon, B. and A. Edmondson. 1997. OrganizationalLearning and Competitive Advantage. London: SagePublications.

Nadler, P.A. and N.L. Tushman. 1991. Organizing forInnovation, in K. Starkey (ed.).How Organizations

Learn. London: International Thomas Business Press.Nonaka, I. 1991. The Knowledge Creating Company,Harvard Business Review, Nov.Dec.: 96104.

Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge Creat-ing Company: How Japanese Companies Create the

Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford UnivPress.

Pedler, M. T. Boydell and J. Burgoyne. 1991. Towthe Learning Company,Management EducatioDevelopment, 20(1): 18.

Poell, R.F. G.E. Chivers, F.S. Van der Krogt

D.A. Wildemeersch. 2000. Learning NetTheory: Organizing the Dynamic Relation

between Learning and Work,Management Lea31(1): 2549.

Prahalad, C.K. and G. Hamel. 1990. The Core

petence of Corporation, Harvard Business R68(3): 7991.

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. London: CeBooks.

Sewell, G. and B. Wilkinson. 1992. Someone to WOver Me: Surveillance, Discipline and the Ju

Time Labor Process, Sociology, 26(3): 27189.Simons, R. 1995. Levers of Control: How Manager

Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic RenBoston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Snell, R. and A.M. Chak. 1998. The Learning Oization: Learning or Empowerment for Wh

Management Learning, 29(3): 33764.Stata, R. 1989. Organizational Learning: The K

Management Innovation, Sloan Management R12(1): 6374.

Storey, J. 1995. New Perspectives on Human Reso

Management. London: Routledge.Taylor, F. 1947. Scientific Management. New York: GHill Books.

Thompson, P. and S. Ackroyd. 1995. All Quiet oWorkplace Front? A Critique of Recent Tren

British Industrial Relations, Sociology, 29(4): 61Townley, B. 1993. Selection and Appraisal: Rec

tuting Social Relations? in J. Storey (ed.),H

Resource Management: A Critical Text. LondonPublications.

Ulrich, D., T. Jicks and M.A. Glinow. 1994. High ImLearning: Building and Diffusing Lear

Capability, Organizational Dynamic, 22(Autu5279.

Yin, R.K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and MCalifornia: Sage Publications.



21/24

238 Devi Akella


APPENDIX

Table 1

Sources of Data

Research Technique Data Gathered

In-depth interviews Subjective views of 42 employeesUnstructured observation Subjective observations of the researcherSecondary sources Organizational Manual, Organizations Chart, Financial Reports, Brochures a

Pamphlets

Table 2

Information of Interviewees

Departments Partners Directors Managers Exec

Auditing 3 2

Research 1Accounting and Taxation 1 2Corporate Services 1 Business Consultancy 1 Information Technology 1 1 1Branch 1Administration

Table 3

Themes and Analysis

Themes Interview Quotes Secondary Sources Relevance Power MechDefinition/Meaning ofLearningOrganization

Learning organization isneeded when the human factorcomes into considerationwhen the top managementdoes not keep up with thelatest organizational concepts.Now on account of changes inthe market and heavycompetition, people are forcedto learn continuously that the

major objective is clientsatisfaction and profitability.Okay, so if you ensure clientsatisfaction you will survivethat is marketability, clientswill market you.

LO as a contemporarycontrol mechanism fornew market conditions.

(Table 3 conti



22/24



Themes Interview Quotes Secondary Sources Relevance Power Mech

Learning organization issomeplace where the top

managements objectives

are well accepted by theteam consisting ofprofessionals andemployees within their

organizations as their own,by continuously checking

the organization process,upgrading the skills of

their employees, checkingthe clients objectives and

the organizations ability

in delivering goods to theclients and contributingsomething to the society,

environment. So that youare a part of the total

system the individualswithin an organization

should feel that they arecontinuously contributing

but the ultimate objectiveis the customer

If you feel it is your owncompany then only youcan identify with it.

Strict disciplinarianattitude wouldnt work.Take up the role of

coordinator and afacilitator. When I feel

something is not goingwell, call them, discuss

with them, get hold of their

ideas, in fact facilitate andthen say what is wrong.Then make amends

without them knowing. Letthem volunteer ideas and

make decisions

SurveillanceTechniquesManagerialStyle

Hegemonic CoTechnique

(Table 3 conti

(Table 3 continued)



23/24

240 Devi Akella


Themes Interview Quotes Secondary Sources Relevance Power Mech

Meetings help in thepurpose of reviewing the

performance [pause] there

should be a cut off date[weekly or monthly] whenyour performance should

be evaluated; then onlyyou will be in a position to

so that in case of nonperformance, steps can be

taken basically its a reviewof performance and wehave informal meetings

also where we chat about

our past performances, ourviews and opinions, whatorders the company gives

we have formal meetingsare a review of performance

has to be there, so if theyare they can come out and

talk about it with the topmanagement [pause] any

problems are looked in toby the management so that

the executive can meet thetargets also, basically its

way to review yourperformance and removing

of hurdles which mayhinder performance.

Informal meetings are away to direct our mindprofessionally

Constant competition now

working in a team, and I

handle project work(pause) constantcompetition, have to do it

to look better than S

CommunicationSystems

MatrixStructure

FoucaultsConfession Sys

Concertive CoSystem

(Table 3 cont

(Table 3 continued)



24/24

global business review 2008 akella 219 41

Documents