OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO

RESISTANCE: INSIGHTS FROM A

STUDY OF THE SHADOWS
WALTER R.NORD
JOHN M. JERMIER
University of South Florida
INTRODUCTION
This article analyzes how students of organizations have used the
concept of resistance. Its purposes are twofold. First, the authors
seek to deepen understanding of the concept of resistance by dis-
cussing certain lacunae in treatments of this topic. Second, by
exploring the origins and nature of these lacunae, they seek to gain
insights into fundamental assumptions that are associated with
significant limitations in contemporary thought about organization
development and related branches of applied social science.
The analysis develops from an application of Carl Jung's concept
of the Shadow. The authors apply the idea of the Shadow to two sets
of treatments of resistance—the treatments by writers whom we
describe as managerialist in their view of the study of change and
those by another group that have been highly critical of the manage-
rialist views. In addition to deepening our understanding of resist-
ance 2md sources of shortcomings in the approaches of both of these
groups, the analysis leads to suggestions for improvement.

THE SHADOW

Although Jung's (1969) metaphor of the Shadow originally re-

ferred to the parts of an individual's personality that s/he refused to
accept, the term recently has been used to deepen oxjr understanding
of organizations. For example, Denhardt (1981:vil) employs the con-
cept to call attention to "... the ethic of existence of an organization"
that pervades contemporary life. Bowles (1991:4(X)) demonstrated
the value of "the Shadow" metaphor for revealing detrimental effects
that organizational management can have on "... human, moral and
PAQ WINTER 1994 (397)

social concerns." The authors suggest that similar insights can be

gained through application of the Shadow metaphor to frameworks
of thought in the social sciences.
Bowles (1991:388), following Jung, observed: "The Shadow ...
represents the inferior part of the personality, the sum of all the
personal and collective psychic elements which, because of their
incompatibility, are banished to the unconscious." It also includes
information from the outside world which does not carry sufficient
energy to be recorded in consciousness. The Shadow has a symbiotic
relationship with the individual's ego. As Bowles (Ibid., 389) put it:
"Qualities or characteristics which the ego does not need or cannot
make use of are set aside or repressed." In other words, the content
of the Shadow is a function of the ego-what the ego rejects comes to
rest in the Shadow. If the ego were different, so would the Shadow
be different. Qften, coming to terms with reality requires that the
latent element of the personality be brought out of the Shadow.
The authors suggest an analogue of this process operates in
social theories. The manifest content of a theory predisposes its
users to exclude elements systematically from their consciousness
that, in some circumstances, are important in order for the theory to
provide a useful guide to reality. Moreover, given the symbiotic rela-
tionship between the manifest and latent aspects of a theory, explo-
ration of the Shadow side is as important to understanding a per-
spective as is analysis of its manifest contents.
It also seems likely that critics of a theory will be concerned with
both its manifest and latent content. Thus we might be able to learn
about the Shadow side of a theory by looking at its critics. Qf course
critics will have Shadow sides as well. Therefore, we might also
expect to find clues about the critics' Shadow side in the manifest
content of the theory they critique.
If, however, we find that two conflicting approaches have relegat-
ed the same elements to their respective Shadows, it may be that we
have uncovered parts of a Collective Shadow. Discovery of such
widely repressed components could lead us to insights about major
barriers to progress in thought. For example, if all theorists of a
certain subject, even those who appear to be holding conflicting posi-
tions, are making common, erroneous assumptions, imcovering these
could be an important step to progress.
In this article, the authors use the Shadow metaphor to analyze
treatment of the concept of resistance. They analyze treatments
written by scholars coming from two sharply different perspectives.
(398) PAQ WINTER 1994

The analysis reveals important aspects of the Shadow of both per-

spectives and the Collective Shadow shared by a broad spectrum of
students of organizations.

"Resistance" in Organizational Studies

Students of organizations have used "resistance" in a variety of

contexts. Its major use in managerialist discourse has been in discus-
sions of organizational change. In addition, it has special significance
to more critical analysts, such as labor process theorists. Conse-
quently, examining resistance may help us illuminate the Shadow
side of diverse approaches in organization science.
Under the heading of "overcoming resistance to change," stu-
dents with managerialist^ orientation have demonstrated a long-
standing interest in resistance. It often happens that placing heavy
emphasis on one facet of something results in other aspects being
pushed into the Shadow. The authors suggest that the emphasis by
managerialist writers on overcoming resistance has had this effect.
In addition, the concern with overcoming resistance appears to
be linked to a pejorative view of "resistance" and resisters—a view
apparently derived from the use of "resistance" by Freud. In psycho-
analytic theory, resistance is often seen as a process that keeps
neurotic individuals distant from reality and from the suggestions of
their therapists. Further, this use of "resistance" takes an unhealthy
individual or an imdesirable state of affairs as points of departure.
Consequently, it implies that resistance is undesirable and that
change is desirable.
In the Shadow of this perspective is the possibility that the indi-
vidual who is resisting an authority may be better off for doing so out
of a position of health rather than illness. Also relegated to the
Shadow is the possibility that the consequences of the status quo are
better for the individual than those of a proposed change. In other
words, if we assume a healthy individual or state of affairs, we would
see resistance as desirable—e.g., resistance to illness. Similarly, in
physics, resistance is not always a problem. It is a barrier to moving
something but an invaluable asset if you want to hold something in
place or if you value friction as when generating heat or electricity is
the goal.
In other words, resistance refers to a neutral process; overcoming
it is only desirable for some purposes and enhancing it may be the
means to other objectives. If one values the current state, resistance
PAQ WINTER 1994 (399)

to change is "good"; if the current state is viewed as negative, then

resistance is "bad."
As noted, conventional organizational behaviorists and students
of QD often view resisters as pathological and treat resisters and
resistance as things to overcome. Moreover, in contrast to the thera-
peutic settings, these students' interest in overcoming resistance is
not justified primarily because it helps the resister. Rather, their
concern with resistance stems from the fact that, unless it is over-
come, the objectives of someone else (e.g., management's goals or
those of an QD interventionist) are threatened. In short, resistance
is something to be resisted.
This approach to resistance is a long-standing one and is easily
detected in some of the early Human Relations publications. For
example, Elton Mayo's (1933/1960) description of the interview
program conducted at the Western Electric Company makes it clear
that the Hawthorne researchers adopted a clinical and therapeutical
orientation in their work. Both texts cited above relied heavily on
psychoanalytic categories and are replete with references to Pierre
Janet, Sigmund Freud, and other psychopathologists.
This orientation led the interviewers to discount the heavy bal-
ance of unfavorable comments made by participants in the study and
attribute criticism of the company and its supervisors to individual
"maladjustment." Although Mayo did acknowledge that the center of
individual maladjustment could be found somewhere in the relation-
ship between person, work, and company policy, his interpretations
overall of the causes of worker resistance focused on physical and
mental problems, preoccupation with personal situations, obsession
and other personality disorders, distortion and exaggeration, irra-
tional thinking, and poor communication.
It is clear that Mayo and the Hawthorne researchers tended to
include a counseling role aimed at effecting emotional catharsis in
the individual interviewee as within their realm of responsibility.
Rather than determine what might have been wrong with the work
itself, supervision or company expectations, they sought to facilitate
worker adjustments" to the existing situation through better commu-
nication and emotional release.
The heavy emphasis on overcoming resistance refiects an impor-
tant assumption managerialist writers seem to hold. The writers
appear to be assuming that those who would resist are powerful
actors (or could easily become so). If they were not powerful, why
would so much attention be given to dealing with them? It is because
(400) PAQ WINTER 1994

they are perceived as powerful that their resistance is important to

overcome and their protests suppressed. Interestingly, the assump-
tion that the lower level participants are powerful seems to be quite
different from those held by the critical writers.
Recently students of organizations purporting to advance the
interests of lower level participants, have criticized the managerialist
views. In contrast to conventional writers, members of the critical
group tend to see the absence of resistance as problematic.
Somewhat paradoxically, however, a number of these critics also
appear to bypass serious analysis of resistance. For example, Brav-
erman (1974) seemed to view workers as a passive group and gave
little attention to the struggles against Taylorism. It is worth noting
that even Marx (1867/1967), upon whom many of these critics draw
heavily, saw the proletariat (the social class upon which radical
change depended) as an enfeebled lot. The ability of these people to
resist would necessitate a transformation of their cognitions and
abilities. Effective resistance was therefore something that could
only occur in the future.
Similarly, Edwards (1979) left us with a picture of a growing
number of employees of capital being effectively controlled by
technology and bureaucratic procediu-es. He concluded (Ibid., 215)
that it is "uncertain" whether the "ambitious agenda" that would
empower them would ever come about. Further, one comes away
from the insightful work of Burawoy (1979) with a view of lower
level participants consenting to their domination. In short, in con-
trast to their managerialist colleagues, the critics see resistance as
positive but view potential resisters as enfeebled.
It is noteworthy, however, that, like conventional writers, many
critical writers see lower level participants acting pathologically-as
behaving in ways that are counter to their own interests. Qf course
what they take as evidence of pathology contrasts sharply with what
the managerialist writers take as evidence. For the former, the fail-
ure to resist is pathological; it is evidence of "false consciousness" or
gullibility or having been "bought off." For the managerialist writers,
of course, resisting is evidence of pathology as well; it refiects failure
to recognize common goals.
Thus, despite their differences, the authors' analysis reflects a
surprising similarity between the managerialist and critical writers.
Even though both are committed to empowering workers, both
approaches are profoundly elitist—neither teikes seriously the possi-
bility that the actions of the individuals under consideration are
PAQ WINTER 1994 (401)

rational expressions of their true preferences. Both interpret the

behavior of lower level participants as stemming from deficient
preference structures and misconceptions of reality. Their expressed
interests are treated as symptoms, not as expressions by informed
people. The authors suggest that this may highlight an element of
the Collective Shadow of modern applied social science.
In short, both conventional and critical perspectives yield incom-
plete treatments of resistance in organizations. Both seem uninter-
ested in pushing resistance out into the light and looking at it in its
own terms. Actions of lower level participants are seen as irrational
or insignificant. Each approach has tended to focus on certain as-
pects and ignore others. Managerialist writers have studied resist-
ance often and intensely, but usually push its benefits into the
Shadow. Critical writers emphasized its positive effects, but often
failed to see it when it occurred. Thus, each produces an incomplete
picture.

SOURCES OF RESISTANCE TO RESISTANCE

What might we learn about both perspectives (and organization

science more generally) by analyzing the sources of resistance to
resistance? In this context the authors ask: Why have both manage-
rialist and critical writers resisted resistance? They offer a few specu-
lations.
Blinded by grand visions. For managerialist writers, resistance
interferes with their vision of a work force cooperating in the pursuit
of organizational goals. Because these writers tend to grant a privi-
leged position to the objectives of managers or owners, the "resist-
ers'" goals are of peripheral concern, Qften they are viewed as "poor"
goals. To the degree that these goals deserve to be understood at all,
it is mainly to find ways to keep them from interfering with "better"
goals. More commonly, however, the assinnption is made that there
is little real conflict anyway and the problem is simply to help the
resisters realize non-zero sum situations.
Similarly, the grand visions of criticcd writers lead them to ignore
the goals of current resisters. These writers envision radically trans-
formed social and organizational forms. They are troubled by the
fact that people who should be resisting are not. Moreover, as the
writers see it, even when the workers do resist (e.g., strike), their
resistance seems to reflect non-revolutionary ends and, hence, a
"poor" choice of goals. The writers are disappointed by the workers.
(402) PAQ WINTER 1994

The "alienated" workers strike merely for higher wages.

Further, they seem eager to perform seemingly routine tasks
diligently in order to earn a lot of money so they can pursue what the
critics see as frivolous consumer goods and anesthetizing leisure
activities, such as drinking beer and watching TV. When the workers
are aroused to protest, they are concerned with narrow parochial
interests such as seniority rights. Their aims, to the critical writers,
seem to be very individualistic and materialistic without vision.
Moreover, what someone like Scott (1986) might see as "every-
day forms" of resistance—stealing from the company, sabotaging
machines and projects, whistleblowing, harassing supervisors, engag-
ing in slowdowns and strikes, working to rule, and other things that
protect their own interests in their local settings-are not what many
of the critical writers value. While critical writers often look favora-
bly on such acts as evidence that the type of discontent necessary for
radical change exists, their interest in linking these actions to the
larger vision leads them to ignore and/or misinterpret the subjective
meanings they may have to workers in a local context.
Politically, the workers are equally disappointing. They support
special interest legislation, candidates that they see as protecting
their jobs, and individual privileges even when such protection may
be ecologically harmful or supportive of racist and sexist practices.
They voted for Reagan-twice! Clearly, these interests can hardly be
the raw materials for the transformation sought by critical writers.
Too far away to detect. Another reason why both traditions may
fail to consider resistance in its own terms stems from their tendency
to conduct what Mintzberg (1979) called "research from a distaace."
Many writers in both groups have failed to get close enough to the
workplace itself to allow them to comprehend what really might be
takii^ place. Given the interest managerialist writers have in chang-
ing specific situations, they may be closer to the local action than are
the critical writers who are interested in discovering some basis for a
general class consciousness.
Qf course this cannot be the entire problem because a number of
critical writers (e.g., Pfeffer, 1979; Jackall, 1978; Burawoy, 1979;
Hochschild, 1983) have contributed grounded research. Neverthe-
less, work which the authors are doing on resistance in labor process
theory suggests that investigators most likely to "see" resistance are
those doing case studies in which they have close contact with lower
level participants (see, Jermier, Nord, and Knights, 1993). Without
such close contact, it is easy to misinterpret the meaning that certain
PAQ WINTER 1994 (403)

actions (e.g., the way one dresses may have, see Gottfried, 1993).
Moreover, since much resistance (e.g., sabotage) is apt to be delib-
erately hidden, it can easily be missed by observation from a dis-
tance (Jermier, 1988).
Overlooking passion. Qther possible reasons for inadequate
attention to resistance by both groups are their heavily rational,
cognitive orientations, positive views of human nature, and the belief
in progress. Given these orientations, members of both groups may
be ill-prepared to treat behaviors that might emanate from passions,
aggressive impulses, and archetypal and instinctual characteristics.
Outmoded view of power. Another reason that writers-especially
those with a critical bent-may overlook resistance stems from their
view of power. As the authors have noted, resistance implies reac-
tion to something, often to the wishes of some powerful actor. Clegg
(1989) noted that many students continue to hold the view of "sover-
eign power," seeing power as located in human agents (like kings)
who control resources. With this vision of power, when we search for
evidence of resistance, we tend to look for actions against the ex-
pressed wishes of some human agent. However, if, as Clegg suggest-
ed, in modern society power is exercised in more decentralized ways,
resistance can be expected to be a decentralized process directed at
local circumstances. Again, those looking for grand social change are
apt to miss these localized expressions.
Intellectual snobbery. Finally, their academic orientations might
lead members of both camps to deemphasize existing resistance. The
rational orientation and rules of discourse that guide academic
inquiry and status systems can contribute to an intellectual snobbery.
People who voice their interests in terms of other discourses seem
inarticulate and are easily discounted.

CONSEQUENCES OF BYPASSING RESISTANCE

By bypassing current forms of resistance, writers in both tradi-

tions do a disservice to thefieldand may do a disservice to their own
agendas. The authors comment on a few,
Failnre to see alternatives. Not taking seriously what a given set
of actions might mean to the actors increases the possibility of
missing viable alternative agendas. Instead of building on current
meanings and interests, we project images of our own meanings.
Designing organizations on the latter rather than the former may
keep us from proposing arrangements that might be more viable
(404) PAQ WINTER 1994

than the ones we do design. Likewise, we may mistake quite rational

behavior (such as actions that have a positive expected value to the
"resister" or "nonresister) for irrational action and thereby further
obscure the subjective reality of those involved.
Qn the other hand, if these agendas are assigned validity and the
individuals accorded the status of rational actors, we might come to
understand organizations and their participants in new ways. Klein
(1966, 1976) made a similar point by calling for students with
managerialist views to consider resistance as part of the process that
individuals use to maintain their integrity and esteem. If we study
resistance in this way, Klein suggested, we might have a better
chance to get in touch with a system's key values.
Deficient perspectives from incomplete views of human nature.
A few scholars have pointed to some negative consequences of the
failure to deal with the Shadow side of human nature that may be
expressed in resistance. Zaleznik (1988:170) observed that a major
reason that human rese^ch managers axe, not more effective is that
they"... don't understand human beings because they won't confront
aggression—in themselves or in other people."
Gouldner (1985) pointed to the significance of similar omissions
for the critical tradition. In comparing the revolutionary theories of
Marx and Bakimin, Gouldner pointed to how the heavily cognitive
bias of Marxism may have contributed to deficient theorizing about
revolution. In contrast, the importance Bakunin gave to the destruc-
tive impulse might lead to a more complete understanding of revolu-
tion. Quoting Bakunin, Gouldner (1985:168) wrote:"'... social revolu-
tion ... can take place only when the people have a general idea of
their rights and a deep, passionate, even religious, faith in their
rights.'" Gouldner continued that Bakunin conceived revolution as a
kind of human volcano replete with "unbridled animal savagery."
Again quoting Bakunin, Gouldner (Ibid., 169): "'... inasmuch as
property in most cases does not belong to the people, they very often
evidence a positive passion for destruction ... without that passion
the revolutionary cause is impossible for realization, for there can be
no revolution without a sweeping and passionate destruction ... since
by means of such destruction new worlds are born and come into
existence.'" Marx's revolution, on the other hand, was grounded in
the same belief in progress and the "instrumental rationality and
impersonal energy" (Ibid.) that spawned capitalism. Consequently,
the thinking of the Marxists had so much in common with that of the
bourgeoisie that it could not pro\dde an adequate concept for radical
PAQ WINTER 1994 (405)

change.
Inadeqnate understanding of change. Qther consequences are
more limited to the particular approaches. With respect to m2mage-
rialist approaches, Klein (1966, 1976) made a compelling argument
for the need for students of planned change to take resistance seri-
ously. In his view, resistance is part of the process of successful
change, where success includes maintaining the integrity and esteem
within the social system. Among other things, study of resistance is a
means of coming in touch with the key values of the system.
For radical writers, the failure to see evidence of resistance may
contribute to a serious deficiency in their analysis—locating the
agents for sweeping change. Many of these theorists, including Marx
(see, Gouldner, 1980), are unable to provide a realistic scenario for
achieving the change that they seek. Where are the individuals will-
ing to pay the costs of fighting "the system"? What kinds of condi-
tions must be created to foster such behavior?
Rather than viewing the absence of such people as evidence of
false consciousness, if critical writers attend to the expressions of
resistance that the authors suggest already exist, they might see that
these are means individuals and groups are using to assert them-
selves in ways that seem likely to make their lives more satisfactory
in their own terms and in their own local circumstances. Such indi-
viduals only appear passive and alienated when one's image is of
some grand change-a new social order-which may be far from what
the "victims of false consciousness" desire. Analysis of these process-
es might reduce the apparent need for radical writers to revert to
grand Utopian schemes. Instead, they might turn their attention to
more micro levels in their quest to help empower others.

CONCLUSIONS
To conclude: using the Shadow metaphor, the authors have
suggested that students of organizations have resisted exploring
certain aspects of resistance. Analysis of this resistance reveals
important latent assumptions that reside in major approaches in
organizational studies. Interestingly, even approaches that are at
opposite poles in many issues seem to have overlapping Shadow
sides.
To the degree that this analysis is valid, a few steps seem appro-
priate. The authors recommend more grounded studies. They also
suggest the value of considering the various grand visions that are
(406) PAQ WINTER 1994

embedded in the different approaches and how they might lead to

inappropriate attention to routine behavior in organizations. Fur-
ther, they suggest the value of considering how our own assumptions
about human natural—particularly the ones that seem to deny de-
structive and aggressive facets-might limit our analysis.
Although the authors are not necessarily interested in finding
(and in fact have some fear of the tendency of many social scientists
to try to find) things that are both good for the worker and for
management, some of the steps they are advocating may have this
quality. The approach moves us to the realities of the workplace and
the people who inhabit it-not the workplace we wish existed or the
people we wished were there. If we take the people who exist seri-
ously, we become interested in their experienced needs. Helping
them to articulate their experienced needs in peu'ticular locations is
consistent with at least some needs of managers to find out what is
"really there" and some desires of those who take the interests and
empowerment of lower level participants as problematic.
Finally, a brief refiection on this analysis. In calling for overcom-
ing resistance to resistance, the authors, of course, might be accused
of resisting resistance to resistance. What then have they pushed into
the Shadow? They are aware of one thing: they have omitted the
work of a number of historians (e.g., Montgomery, 1979) who have
documented important instances of worker resistance. Undoubtedly
the authors have ignored much else. While they wish it were other-
wise, they accept it as a fact of life in general and intellectual life in
particular that there will always be a Shadow side.
The authors hope that they have illuminated more aspects of
hiunan experience and organizational theory and development than
they have obscured. Whether they have or have not, they do not
know. But, evaluating their contribution in this way suggests that the
metaphor of the Shadow may offer a new criterion for evaluating an
effort to contribute to knowledge—the ratio of what it illuminates to
what it obscures.^

NOTES
1. When the authors refer to managerialist and critical writers, they are talking about
general streams of thought. The attributions they make represent tendencies
within two sets of writers rather than absolute features of all members of the
particular tradition. Managerialist writers (also referred to as conventional writ-
ers) tend to take for granted the primacy and legitimacy of goal accomplishment
PAQ WINTER 1994 (407)

that the critical writers see as over-compensating owners of capital and other
elites. Usually, structural-functionalist social theories underwrite their views of
organizational life and tend to endorse, at least tacitly, non-zero sum views of
wealth production and distribution.
Further, managerialists tend not to challenge the rights of property
owners related to employment. When they do advocate organizational change,
their solution to problems are grounded in individualistic and social values rather
than Judaeo-Christian (see, Golembiewski, 1989) or even more revolutionary
values that might lead to recommendations for sweeping legal and political
economic reform.
Critical writers have tended to be inspired intellectually by Marxist or
neo-Marxist theories. Labor process theorists (see Knights and Willmott, 1990)
comprise the largest segment of this loose amalgamation of writers but this per-
spective has also been developed by Frankfurt School critical theorists, radical
political economists and sociologists, dialectical anthropologists, "new" labor histo-
rians, and, to a lesser extent, some radical feminists, deconstructionists, and
postmodernists.
In comparison to the managerialists, critical writers are more apt to orient
their work explicitly to benefit society's exploited, usually construed in capitalist
political economies as laborers and their allies. In fundamental ways, they chal-
lenge power derived from wealth and office, often advocating radical transforma-
tion of economic and political structures to serve the interests of a democratic
polity. Consistent with their critique of the material distribution of advantages in
organizations and societies, critical writers attempt to demystify ideologies and
other less coherent belief systems that obscure privilege and exploitation and
enable reproduction of the status quo. They tend to be skeptical of incremental
reformist projects and programs, favoring instead explosive, bottom-up, sweeping
transformations.
2. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual Meetings of the
Academy of Management, Miami, August 1991. The insightful comments of Ann
Connell on an earlier draft are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
Bowles, M.L. (1991). "The Organization Shadow." ORGANIZATION STUDIES
12:387-404.
Braverman, H. (1974). LABOR AND MONOPOLY CAPITAL. New York: Month-
ly Review Press.
Burawoy, M. (1979). MANUFACTURING CONSENT: CHANGES IN THE
LABOR PROCESS UNDER MONOPOLY CAPITALISM. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press
(408) PAQ WINTER 1994

Clegg, S.R. (1989). FRAMEWORKS OF POWER. London: Sage.

Denhardt, R.B. (1981). IN THE SHADOW OF ORGANIZATION. Lawrence:
Regents Press of Kansas.
Edwards, R. (1979). CONTESTED TERRAIN: THE TRANSFORMATION OF
THE WORKPLACE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. New York: Basic
Books.
Golembiewski, R.T. (1989). MEN, MANAGEMENT, AND MORALITY. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Gottfried, H. (1991). "Learning the Score: The Duality of Control and Everyday
Resistance in the Temporary Help Service Industry." Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Gouldner, A.W. (1980). THE TWO MARXISMS: CONTRADICTIONS AND
ANOMALIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEORY. New York: Seabury
Press.
Hochschild, A.R. (1983). THE MANAGED HEART: COMMERCIALIZATION
OF HUMAN FEELINGS. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jackall, R. (1978). WORKERS IN LABYRINTH: JOBS AND SURVIVAL IN A
BANK BUREAUCRACY. Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun & Co.
Jermier, J.M. (1988). "Sabotage at Work: The Rational View." RESEARCH IN THE
SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS 6:101-134.
Jermier, J.M., W.R. Nord, and D. Knights (1993). RESISTANCE AND POWER IN
ORGANIZATIONS. London: Routledge.
Jung, C.G. (1969). THE ARCHETYPES AND THE COLLECTIVE UNCON-
SCIENCE. (RF.C. Hull, Trans.) 2nd ed. New York: Princeton Univeisity Press.
Klein, D. (1966). "Some Notes on the Dynamics of Resistance to Change: The
Defender Role." COOPERATIVE PROJECT FOR EDUCATIONAL DEVEL-
OPMENT SERIES, 1. Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories. Re-
printed in W.G. Bennis, K.D. Benne, R. Chin, and K.E. Corey (eds.) (1976). THE
PLANNING OF CHANGE, 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Knights, D. and H. Willmott (eds.) (1990). LABOR PROCESS THEORY. London:
Macmillan.
Marx, Karl (1867/1967). CAPITAL: A CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY.
New York: International Publishers.
Mayo, E. (1933/1960). THE HUMAN PROBLEMS OF AN INDUSTRIAL CIVI-
LIZATION. New York: Viking Press.
(1945). THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF AN INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZA-
TION. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). THE STRUCTURING OF ORGANIZATIONS. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Montgomery, D. (1979). WORKERS' CONTROL IN AMERICA. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
PAQ WINTER 1994 (409)

Pfeffer, R.M. (1979). WORKING FOR CAPITALISM. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Scott, J. (1986). "Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance." JOURNAL OF PEAS-
ANT STUDIES 13:5-35.
Zaleznik, A. (1988). "What's Wrong with HRM?" HARVARD BUSINESS
REVIBW 88(6): 170-171.