Intro: 200

Week
1
(370)
INTRODUCTION;
WHAT
IS
CRITICAL
MANAGEMENT/INQUIRY?
The develop of critical thinking: Critical thinking is that thinking, on any
subject, content or problem, in which the thinking improves the quality of
your thinking to seize the inherent structures of the act of thinking and
when subjected to intellectual standards. The result can be seen as a
critical thinker can:
Formulate issues and vital questions with clarity and precision.
Collects and evaluates relevant information and use abstract ideas to
interpret that information effectively.
Reach conclusions and solutions, testing them with relevant criteria and
standards.
Thinks with an open mind within alternative schemes of thinking;
recognizes and evaluates, as needed, the assumptions, implications, and
practical consequences and
When developing solutions to complex problems, can communicate
effectively.
So, critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-regulating and
self-corrected. It supposed to undergo rigorous standards of excellence
and conscious control of their use. It implies effective communication and
problem-solving skills and a commitment to overcome selfishness and
natural socio-centrism of the human being.
Taken from, Richard Paul and Linda Elder (2008). The Miniature Guide to
Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking
Press.
Critical Management Studies (CMS) can have many uses, but they mainly
try to highlight other possible "views" of the organizations that are
uncommon. These other views can, among other things, serve to take
different actions that are more innovative. Leveraging the perspective of
Gareth Morgan(2006) (who introduced several metaphors as a way of
looking at organizations: as brain, as a machine, as movement and
processing, as a political system, as a culture, as a psychic prison, as a
system of domination, as an organism; and beyond the number of
metaphors, in fact, more can raise), it could be demonstrated that when
we think about organizations, we are at one or two metaphors or visions
and that it is difficult to leave them (e.g.: some of the previous eight is
never spoken: the organization as a political system, as psychic prison, as
a system of domination).
By looking at Alveson (2009) the CMS focus on the views than traditional
Management covers less (with political and ethical implications). So it
could be said, that the traditional/ dominant vision of Management is
overly reduced to the argument that there is good and so bad way to try
to manage people well (and that the goal of management is to find the
one best way). For CMS, describing management in these terms,
regardless of the power relations within organizations is simply too
insufficient. When it is stated that the goal is WIN-WIN, CMS responds that
usually things are more complicated than a WIN-WIN scenario in real

organizations and what abounds is something like humanism subordinated

to short-term metrics (and for which there is usually no discussion),
making it difficult (if not impossible) that WIN-WIN.
Week 2 - RADICAL STRUCTURALISM / MARX AND LPT
It is important to understand the labour value from a Marxism point of
view. Work is the essence of all value, the value is an objective property of
all goods and therefore had to find its roots in something other than
supply and demand, the price reflects a value caused by the common
element of all goods.
Looking at Vienneau (2004) FAQ about The Labor Theory of Value. It can
be appreciated that, Marx had a problem with Ricardos theory. If work is
the essence of the value of change, it is important to clarify what is the
exchange value of the work: this value of the labour force can be divided
into a necessary amount for subsistence (necessary social labour), and
determines the value of work and another quantity called added value of
whom the capitalist appropriates. Because of that, capitalism cannot exist
if the worker does not produce a value greater than the required for their
own subsistence. This added value arises in production, it is then that the
purpose of production is to remove or extract this gain of each worker
(which is denominated exploitation of labour).
This exploitation is because the value of the surplus is for the capitalist,
the worker produces more than it is worth, the added value is thus the
sum of all income that does not correspond to work, is an integral part of
class conflict, since if there is not a difference between the value of work
and its use value, then the capitalist would not acquire any work.
Another problem with Ricardo is how the value of goods produced by
machinery is determined. Marx argued that only the work done produces
added value, but the machines are some kind of crystallized work, this
response will deny that machines are not productive themselves and
should be valued differently from the of production work done
(Beverungen, 2014).
Week 3 - BUREAUCRACY AND RATIONALITY
It is important how Webers critique of capitalism differs from Marxs. Even
though, in Webers the differentiation of degrees of specialization of
labour, the application of rationality is one of the main principles that
differentiate Western society from the others.
Marx criticizes this organization of work (Taylors), these social relations of
production, which are mechanisms, through which can be understood how
the worker sell their labour power in order to get a salary, with what can
be deduced labour power as a commodity.
The problem is that the salary received by the worker does not really
represent the value of labour that the worker invests in manufacturing of
goods and a surplus is created, which end up in hands of the employer.
This surplus is produced as from the very beginning, the worker of the
product is separated from the merchandise produced and that is when it
can be put to the market to be sold at a price higher to salary.

Another important subject is the tension between the rationality and

irrationality. It is one of the basic topics of the modern world. A basic part
of historical Weberian studies is aimed to show how the rational emerges
from the irrational, so it is not possible to maintain a division between the
two levels; indeed even none can be clearly differentiated. The "irrational"
fascinates its time: Freud, Thomas Mann and Wever investigating it,
besides they are attracted to the study. That does not mean that the
Weberian work can be confused with an "irrationalism" instead it shows
how extremely complex, and even ambivalent, the very notion of
rationality itself (Wasim, 2011).
(For me) It is very important to know the major schools of organizational
behaviour and the theories that support it, so to know how to organize
work efficiently, how to get more productivity, how to match the
objectives of a company with the staff, to obtain better results and
opportunities for both, among others.
Week 4 - FOUCAULT, DISCIPLINE AND THE RISE OF INSTITUTIONS
The influence of Foucault's work on the CMS has been significant. It has
significantly transformed the kinds of problems that are addressed by the
literature in the field, in which stands, besides those already mentioned,
the analysis of the different types of strategies that the administrative
ideals puts into stake in order to objectify (stereotype) the behaviours of
individuals. Within this type of study stands, on the one hand, the analysis
by D. Knights and colleagues about the effects of strategic discourse in
power relations (Knights, 1992; Knights & Morgan, 1991; SamraFredericks, 2005) and his vision of the strategy as a set of devices
designed to ensure control and standardization of the workforce in
organizations; and on the other hand, the unusual rescue of the resistance
concept as an object of interest in organizational studies (Ball, 2005;
Fleming & Spicer 2003).
It can be seen that, the critical paradigm has endeavoured to show a
vision completely opposed to the functionalist perspective (iv). Their
representatives defend the idea of a power characterized by a structural
domination, going against to the functionalist view, holding a vision
related and interacted to power. To defend this view, the critical trend
introduced different dimensions, such as ideology, the disciplinary
practices and, above all, the notion of domination to interpret the
interstices of the organization. The critical trend was inclined to study the
change, the domination, the exploitation and the disintegration of the
organization. The functionalist paradigm, although it is effective, is
marginally criticized by some researchers of the theories of the
organization who judge as being it excessively stable and formal. This
stability or inactivity as they call it, according to the critical trend, hid the
political, the class domination, the exploitation, the social contradictions,
and the role of hierarchies. It showed itself as a confrontation to the status
quo in force.
The connection that links the critical studies is the representation of power
as a structural effect, but this trend knows a larger heterogeneity of

trends and ideas. These go from the idea of Marxist domination, through
the ideas of Foucault surveillance.
From the functionalist and critical trends, a weakening of the second can
be observed, this in favour of strengthening the first. In the nineties, the
notion of supremacy of strategic actor becomes obvious, to the point that
the most recalcitrant exponents of Marxism in theories of organization
disappeared or formed boundaries with the functionalism, using its main
key concepts: actor, negotiation and strategy.
Week 5 - THREE PERSPECTIVES ON POWER
For this topic, it is important how Weber argues that authority refers to the
routine of obedience and its connection with the values and beliefs that
support to the involved political system. In other words, the power
becomes authority when achieved legitimacy. And this leads us to ask
what legitimacy is. Legitimacy, according to Weber, is what people believe
legitimate. Obedience is obtained without recourse to force, when the
term refers to any value or belief commonly accepted and forms part of
group consensus. Weber distinguishes three types of legitimacy.
The traditional legitimacy, which appeals to the belief in the "holiness" or
correctness of the immemorial traditions of a community as the basis of
power and authority, pointing as legitimate governments those who are
exerted under the influence of those traditional values (the monarchical
legitimacy would be the obvious example of this type of legitimacy).
The charismatic legitimacy, which appeals to the belief in the exceptional
qualities of heroism or character of an individual and the normative
command revealed or ordained by it, considered as worthy of obedience
commands from that person or that command (the authority of leaders
and prophets as diverse as Gandhi, Mussolini or Khomeini could fall into
this category).
The legal-rational legitimacy, which appeals to a belief in the legality and
rational procedures as justification of political order, considering worthy of
obedience those who have been raised to authority, under such rules and
laws; thus, obedience is not lend to specific individuals, but to the laws
(when liberalism brought to the fore the idea of "government of laws and
not of men", it did it following this type of legitimacy)(Spencer, 1970).
Week 6 - CONFLICT AND RESISTANCE AT WORK
Week 7 - ANARCHY, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION
Conclusion: 200
Criticism of Critical Management Studies has been very strong,
particularly from former colleagues Labour Process Theory, which has led
to a lively intellectual debate. Although, Critical Management Studies have
some significant defects (Rowlinson and Carter, 2002), the CMS are,
without doubt, a new view at the world of contemporary organization and
management. Faced by a discipline, dominated by the functional
paradigm, in which academic legitimation strategies are based often on
appeal to the authority of the mentors, and in which, on many occasions,

theoretical activity is despised, exchange of ideas with other disciplines or

even the same exercise of criticism by arguing that management is a
profession focused on the action and in which it is exhausted, it is always
refreshing to meet a school of thoughts that, like CMS, are interested in a
vision that is unorthodox, interdisciplinary and challenging organizational
issues. With the emergence of this new approach, problems, such as
discrimination, inequality, the loss of autonomy and alienation, started to
become visible. These, were hidden to the imperative pragmatic and
positivist that encouraged for many decades practice and research in
management and that only could be seen by using the vision of critical
theory and post-structuralism.
Reference:
Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T. and Willmott, H. (eds) (2009) The Oxford
Handbook of Critical Management Studies, Oxford: OUP.
Ball, K. (2005). Organization, surveillance and the Body: Towards a Politics
of
Resistance.
Organization.
Vol.
12
(1),
pp.
89-108.
http://org.sagepub.com/content/12/1/89.full.pdf
Beverungen, A. (2014). Karl Marx: Marx and Critical Management Studies.
http://www.criticalmanagement.org/resources/theorists/Karl_Marx
Fleming, P. and Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a Cynical Distance:
Implications for Power, Subjectivity and Resistance. Organization. Vol. 10
(1), pp. 157-179.
http://org.sagepub.com/content/10/1/157.full.pdf+html
Knights, D. (1992) Changing Spaces: The Disruptive Impact of a New
Epistemological Location for the Study of Management. The Academy of
Management
Review.
Vol.
17(3),
pp.
514-536.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258721
Knights, D. and Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations and
subjectivity: a critique. Organization Studies. 12 (2), pp. 251-273.
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/12/2/251.full.pdf+html
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks; London: Sage
Publications.
Rowlinson, M. & Carter, Ch. (2002) Foucault and history in organization
studies. En: Organization, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 527-547.
Rowlinson, M. and Carter, Ch. (2002). Foucault and history in organization
studies. In: Organization, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 527-547.
Samra-Fredericks, 2005). Strategic practice: Discourse and Everyday
Interactional Constitution of Power Effects. Organization. Vol.
12(6),pp. 803-841.
http://org.sagepub.com/content/12/6/803.full.pdf+html

Spencer, M. E. (1970). Weber on Legitimate Norms and Authority. The

British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 21 (2). pp. 123-134.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/588403?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents
Vienneau, R. (2004). FAQ about The Labor Theory of Value.
http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LTV-FAQ.html
Wasim, I. A. (2011). Rationality and Irrationality of Max Webers
Bureaucracies. http://www.ijmbs.com/14/wasim.pdf