Steven Washburn

Managing People and Organisations

Culture is a tool used by management to limit resistance. Consider

this statement in relation to how we understand and make sense of
power in the post-bureaucratic era.

Before the 1980s, business was primarily based on the bureaucratic

system, a hierarchy of knowledge and expertise with strict organisational
rules (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis 2008). Therefore, upper level
management in bureaucratic companies had great power, and collective
resistance was employed by workers to challenge this power. In fact,
Courpasson and Clegg (2012, p. 56) state that traditional bureaucracy is
currently transforming itself as a result of the emergence of new forms of
resistance in the workplace.
As a result, in business organizations the post-bureaucratic era has
emerged, resulting in a greater emphasis on civil consensus rather than
autocratic authority (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis 2008). This type of
management style focuses on achieving a greater sense of work satisfaction,
leading to a positive company culture that will reduce the occurrence of
resistance (Rosen 1988). However, as Zimbardo, Maslach and Haney (2000)
suggest, a company can instil a culture of fear of termination in the
workplace. This will act as a deterrent for employees challenging the
practices of a firm.
It can also be argued that a companys culture has the power to prevent
resistance arising in the post-bureaucratic workplace. With reference to four
particularly useful articles, this report will attempt to demonstrate just how
the subtle and adroit manipulation of that culture can undermine employee

Steven Washburn

Managing People and Organisations

resistance. Furthermore, the link between resistance and productivity will be

closely examined.

As mentioned, the bureaucratic system of business exhibited a definite

power hierarchy and a strict network of rules and regulations. Although
post-bureaucracy paradigm is now common in the workforce, some
businesses still exhibit bureaucratic tendencies (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis
2008). This traditional hierarchy of power can create a culture of fear, in
which resistance to the practices of superiors may lead to undesirable
consequences for subordinates. For example, the Stanford Prison
Experiment (SPE) of 1971 illustrates the large power gap between guard and
prisoner (Zimbardo, Maslach & Haney 2000). While the SPE is an extreme
example, the experiment nonetheless reveals the raw power of a
bureaucracy. Any misbehaviour on the part of the prisoners brought direct
and immediate punishment by the guards who acted with impunity.
Alternatively, prisoners were rewarded for good behaviour.
Even in the post-bureaucratic era, many organisations still exhibit certain
bureaucratic tendencies, and the SPE illustrates how companies could create
a culture of fear in order to pre-empt resistive forces. For instance, if an
employee is believed to be working against the established goals of a firm,
he or she is often viewed as a saboteur (Courpasson & Clegg 2012). As a
result, employees are reluctant to deviate from regular corporate practices
because of possible termination or a severe reprimand (Courpasson & Clegg
2012). Therefore, the culture of expecting punishment from a superior at
any time shows how dominant managerial power can be. In fact, Zimbardo,

Steven Washburn

Managing People and Organisations

Maslach and Haney (2000) suggest that people prefer to keep a low profile
in these situations. As a result, attracting support for resistive movements
can be especially difficult. Finally, as in the SPE, an employee who
functions in accordance with corporate policies may be rewarded with a
promotion or some other benefit (Courpasson & Clegg 2012).

However, as the corporate world increasingly enters the post-bureaucratic

era, resistance will have to be controlled through other less obvious power
mechanisms (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis 2008). An example is Rosens
(1988) experience at the Schoenman and Associates advertising agencys
Christmas party, which is described in an article researched and written
during the early years of post-bureaucracy. Although the company in
question has maintains a hierarchical structure and unchanging focus on
professionalism, the firm is moving toward a post-bureaucratic stance by
relaxing certain corporate rules. For instance, at the party employees were
encouraged to drink, dance and interact with each other as if the cultural
norms of bureaucracy had been temporarily suspended. In this sense, if
bosses are shown to be human, if people have fun being together, so may
these things also come to be in the day-to-day processes of the agency
(Rosen 1988, p. 478). The same logic could be applied to any other firm. As
a result, this relaxed office culture would give employees greater job
satisfaction and reduce the need for obstructive measures (Josserand,
Villesche & Bardon 2012). Additionally, social work occasions could allow
feuding individuals the opportunity to sort out their differences over a drink

Steven Washburn

Managing People and Organisations

(Rosen 1988). In such ways, unfriendliness and resistance could be reduced

in the workplace.
However, it is important to note that there will always be a hierarchical
structure in business, even in the post-bureaucratic age (Clegg, Kornberger
& Pitsis 2008), and even when the normal hierarchy is somewhat levelled,
managers will still have a certain degree of authority over proceedings
(Rosen 1988, p. 477). In other words, if a company adopts a model of pure
laissez faire, the ability to effectively control employees will be lost
(Courpasson & Clegg 2012).

In contrast, as noted, some commentators believe that the postbureaucratic era emerged as a result of new forms of resistance cropping up
in the modern workplace (Courpasson & Clegg 2012; Josserand, Villesche
& Bardon 2012; Rosen 1988). For instance, the appearance of unions and
company alumni groups is an indication that corporate power can be
challenged. Such organisations must now be consulted, especially in
decisions that affect the average worker (Josserand, Villesche & Bardon
2012). As a result, alumni groups, who act in the best interests of the firm
and its employees, are able to achieve outcomes that are favourable to
employees. In this kind of consensus a more socially cohesive workplace
can be achieved, and employees are less likely to resist managerial decisions
(Josserand, Villesche & Bardon 2012). Paradoxically, collective resistance
becomes useful in reducing individual resistance in the todays workplace.

Steven Washburn

Managing People and Organisations

Finally, in the post-bureaucratic era it should be noted that resistance is

seen to be a creative measure and not an oppositional force (Courpasson &
Clegg 2012). For instance, cooperative resistance enables managers to learn
from and adapt to contemporary issues (Courpasson and Clegg 2012), such
as ethical and environmental concerns (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis 2008).
Therefore, it can be expected that a company that exhibits organisational
efficiency within the fields of service, performance or cost is usually one
that willingly accommodates resistance (Courpasson & Clegg 2012;
Josserand, Villesche & Bardon 2012). As a result, in any business entity
where the cultural norm is to regulate itself, it can be argued that a
managers power must be compromised in order to transform resistance into
productivity.

As noted, it is unlikely that a business will ever successfully adopt a

policy toward its employees of total laissez faire. As Rosen (1988) contends,
no matter how far industry embraces the post-bureaucratic era, the hierarchy
of office power is still necessary to maintain control and accountability
within an organisation. Similarly, Zimbardo, Maslach and Haney (2000)
point out that resistance can be effectively avoided or neutralised through a
coercive or persuasive culture. It is likewise argued that post-bureaucratic
values have the ability to brainwash employees and transform them into
corporate clones (Josserand, Villesche & Bardon 2012). As a result,
workers are trained not to obstruct the goals of a firm.
However, today, as Courpasson and Clegg (2012) suggest, resistance can
also be considered synonymous with constructive criticism and can actually

Steven Washburn

Managing People and Organisations

aid a company in becoming structurally better off. Moreover, the emergence

of pressure groups allows an industry to be regulated, which subsequently
improves the work place and reduces the need for obstructive forces.
In conclusion, through a study of four perceptive and relevant journal
articles, it can be determined just how the cultural stance of a postbureaucratic company has the power to limit the resistance. As we move
further away from bureaucracy and coercive power, it can be concluded that
persuasive power is becoming a more effective mechanism in identifying
and dealing with employee dissatisfaction and outright resistance within any
business organisation.

Steven Washburn

Managing People and Organisations

References
Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. & Pitsis, T. 2008, Managing and organizations:
an introduction to theory and practice, 2nd edn, Sage, Los Angeles.
Courpasson, D. & Clegg, S.R. 2012, The polyarchic bureaucracy:
Cooperative resistance in the workplace and the construction of a new
political structure of organizations, Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, vol. 34, pp. 55-79.
Josserand, E., Villesche, F. & Bardon, T. 2012, Being an active member of
a corporate alumni network: A critical appraisal, paper presented to
the Academy of Management Meetings, Boston, 3-7 August.
Rosen, M. 1988, You asked for it: Christmas at the bosses expense,
Journal of Management Studies, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 463-80.
Zimbardo, P.G., Maslach, C. & Haney, C. 2000, Reflections of the Stanford
prison experiment: Genesis, transformations, consequences, in T.
Blass (ed.), Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the
Milgram paradigm, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp.
193-237.