Drawing on the literature on active objects and combining it with an ethnographic study of engineering work, this paper offers an alternative and complementary understanding of the problem of control in knowledge-intensive work. This problem largely concerns the question of how creative processes of knowing are enabled on behalf of the organization. The dominant response to this question revolves around the idea that when work becomes complex, managers attempt to control the norms and identifications of employees, rather than their behaviours. Through the concept of object-control, the idea is introduced that organizational objects participate on behalf of the organization in processes of knowledge control by interpellating organizational members; that is, organizational members are invited to interact with the objects and to creatively develop knowledge in order to solve organizational problems. The study covers ground that the established notions of normative control and identity regulation have neglected, and suggests new ways of advancing the scholarship of organizational control by taking the active participation of organizational objects into account.
AlthusserL. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In AlthusserL. (Ed.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays. London: New Left Books.
2.
AlvessonM. (1995). Management of knowledge intensive companies. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
3.
AlvessonM. (2004). Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
AlvessonM.SveningssonS. (2003). The great disappearing act: Difficulties in doing ‘leadership’. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 359–381.
5.
AlvessonM.WillmottH. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 619–644.
6.
AlvessonM.KärremanD. (2007a). Unraveling HRM: Identity, ceremony, and control in a management consulting firm. Organization Science, 18/4, 711–723.
7.
AlvessonM.KärremanD. (2007b). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1265–1281.
8.
AshcraftK. L.KuhnT. R.CoorenF. (2009). Constitutional amendments: ‘Materializing’ organizational communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3/1, 1–64.
9.
BarleyS. R. (1996). Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 404–441.
10.
BarleyS. R.KundaG. (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 363–399.
11.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.
12.
BeckerH. S. (1998). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you’re doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
BellD. (1974). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. London: Heinemann.
14.
BrownA. D.LewisM. A. (2011). Identities, discipline, and routines. Organization Studies, 37, 871–895.
15.
BruniA. (2005). Shadowing software and clinical records: On the ethnography of non-humans and heterogeneous contexts. Organization, 12, 9–12.
16.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE.
17.
CoaseR. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 385–405.
18.
CoorenF. (2006). The organizational world as a plenum of agencies. In CoorenF.TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing (pp. 81–100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
CoorenF.KuhnT. R.CornelissenJ. P.ClarkT. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32, 1149–1170.
20.
CoorenF.FairhurstG. (2009). Dislocation and stabilization: How to scale up from interactions to organization. In PutnamL. L.NicoteraA. M. (Eds.), The communicative constitution of organization: Centering organizational communication (pp. 117–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
CzarniawskaB. (2007). Shadowing, and other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Herndon: Copenhagen Business School Press.
22.
CzarniawskaB. (2008). A theory of organizing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
23.
DiefenbachT.SilienceJ. A. A. (2011). Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization. Organization Studies, 32, 1515–1537.
24.
DingwallR. (1997). Accounts, interviews and observations. In MillerG.DingwallR. (Eds.), Context and method in qualitative research (pp. 51–65). London: SAGE.
25.
DruckerP. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
26.
EngeströmY.BlacklerF. (2005). Introduction: On the life of the object. Organization, 12, 307–330.
27.
EtzioniA. (1961) A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press.
28.
EwensteinB.WhyteJ. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30, 7–30.
29.
FlemingP.SpicerA. (2005). How objects believe for us. Culture and Organization, 11, 181–193.
30.
FlemingP.SpicerA. (2008). Beyond power and resistance: New approaches to organizational politics. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 301–309.
31.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. S. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
32.
JohnsonP.GillJ. (1993). Management control and organizational behaviour. London: Paul Chapman.
33.
Knorr-CetinaK. (1997). Sociality with objects: Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture and Society, 14/4, 1–30.
34.
KuhnT.JacksonM. (2008). Accomplishing knowledge: A framework for investigating knowing in organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 454–485.
35.
KuhnT. (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective in intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29, 1227–1254.
36.
KundaG. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
37.
KärremanD. (2010). The power of knowledge: Learning from ‘Learning by knowledge intensive firms’. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1405–1416.
38.
LabatutJ.AggeriF.GirardN. (2012). Discipline and change: How technologies and organizational routines interact in new practice creation. Organization Studies, 33, 39–69.
39.
LatourB. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In LawJ. (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103–131). London: Routledge.
40.
LatourB. (2000). When things strike back: A possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51, 107–123.
41.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OuchiW. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129–141.
47.
PickeringA. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency & science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
PrasadP. (2005). Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
49.
PrattM. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456–493.
50.
ReckwitzA. (2002). The status of the ‘material’ in theories of culture: From ‘social structure’ to ‘artefacts’. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 32, 195–217.
51.
RobertsonM.SwanJ. (2003). ‘Control – What control?’ Culture and ambiguity within a knowledge intensive firm. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 831–858.
52.
RoseN. S. (1999). The powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SchatzkiT. (2001). Practice minded orders. In SchatzkiT. R.Knorr-CetinaK.von SavignyE. (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 50–63). London: Routledge.
54.
SchwartzmanH. B. (1993) Ethnography in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
55.
SewellG. (2005). Nice work? Rethinking managerial control in an era of knowledge work. Organization, 12, 685–704.
56.
SitkinS. B.CardinalL .B.Bijlsma-FrankemaK. M. (2010). Control is fundamental. In SitkinS. B.CardinalL. B.Bijlsma-FrankemaK. M. (Eds.), Organizational control (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
SpinosaC. (2001). Derridian dispersion and Heideggerian articulation: General tendencies in the practices that govern intelligibility. In SchatzkiT. R.Knorr-CetinaK.von SavignyE. (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 199–212). London: Routledge.
58.
StarbuckW. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 713–740.
TaylorJ. R. (2011). Organization as an (imbricated) configuring of transactions. Organization Studies, 32, 1273–1294.
61.
TaylorJ. R.CoorenF. (2006). Making world view sense: Paying homage, retrospectively, to Algirdas Greimas. In CoorenF.TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing (pp. 115–138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62.
WaltonE. J. (2005). The persistence of bureaucracy: A meta-analysis of Weber’s model of bureaucratic control. Organization Studies, 26, 569–600.
63.
VázquezX. H. (2006). An eclectic explanation of shopfloor control using efficiency and power theories. Organization Studies, 27, 1421–1446.
64.
WeberM. (1947/1922). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press.
65.
VirnoP. (2004). The grammar of the multitude. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
