In this theoretical paper we investigate how domination has adapted to the new social settings of a flexible and pluralist economy. Building on French pragmatic sociology, we propose an understanding of organizational domination whereby workers are enabled and encouraged to overtly express critique, yet work is nevertheless effectively obtained from dominated actors. Domination is here mainly understood as a system through which workers are engaged in action despite critiquing that action. We propose the concept of elusive domination as a combination of three mechanisms that undermine critique’s capacity to influence organizational power arrangements. First, ideological plasticity allows elusive domination to disarm critique by depriving it of its argument. Next, a combination of fast-changing rules and sacrosanct conventions prevents critique from settling, and thus deprives it of its object. Finally, emotions displayed in the workplace are filtered. The encouragement of positive and constructive critique coupled with the repression of uncomfortable feelings deprives critique of its source of indignation. The consequences of such developments for current debates on organizational domination are discussed.
AckroydS.ThompsonP. (1999). Organizational misbehaviour. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
2.
BarnardC. I. (1968[1938]). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
3.
BaumelerC. (2010). Organizational regimes of emotional conduct. In SiebenB.WettergrenA. (Eds.), Emotionalizing organizations and organizing emotions (pp. 272–291). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
BernsteinE.BunchJ.CannerN.LeeM. (2016). Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard Business Review, 94(7–8), 38–49.
5.
BoltanskiL. (1999). Distant suffering: Morality, media and politics. Cambridge cultural social studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BoltanskiL. (2011). On critique: A sociology of emancipation. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity.
7.
BoltanskiL. (2012). Love and justice as competences: Three essays on the sociology of action. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity.
8.
BoltanskiL.ChiapelloE. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism. London and New York: Verso.
9.
BoltanskiL.FraserN. (2014). Domination et émancipation: Pour un renouveau de la critique sociale. Grands débats mode d’emploi. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon.
10.
BoltanskiL.GodetM.-N. (1995). Messages d’amour sur le Téléphone du dimanche. Politix, 8(31), 30–76.
11.
BoltanskiL.ThévenotL. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton studies in cultural sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
BourdieuP. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13.
BurawoyM. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
14.
BurawoyM. (2012). The roots of domination: Beyond Bourdieu and Gramsci. Sociology, 46, 187–206.
15.
CarneyB. M.GetzI. (2009). Freedom, Inc: Free your employees and let them lead your business to higher productivity, profits, and growth. New York: Crown Business.
16.
CaseyC. (1999). ‘Come, join our family’: Discipline and integration in corporate organizational culture. Human Relations, 52, 155–178.
17.
CederströmC.GrassmanR. (2010). The unbearable weight of happiness. In CederströmC.HoedemaekersC. (Eds.), Lacan and organization (pp. 101–132). London: MayFly.
18.
CleggS.BaumelerC. (2010). Essai: From iron cages to liquid modernity in organization analysis. Organization Studies, 31, 1713–1733.
19.
CloutierC.GondJ.-P.LecaB. (Eds.) (2017). Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Vol. 52. Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: Contributions from French Pragmatist Sociology. Emerald Group Publishing.
20.
CollinsonD. (2012). Prozac leadership and the limits of positive thinking. Leadership, 8(2), 87–107.
21.
CourpassonD. (2000). Managerial strategies of domination: Power in soft bureaucracies. Organization Studies, 21, 141–161.
22.
CourpassonD. (2017). Beyond the hidden/public resistance divide: How bloggers defeated a big company. Organization Studies, 38, 1277–1302.
23.
De CockC.NybergD. (2016). The possibility of critique under a financialized capitalism: The case of private equity in the United Kingdom. Organization, 23, 465–484.
24.
DelbridgeR.EdwardsT. (2013). Inhabiting institutions: Critical realist refinements to understanding institutional complexity and change. Organization Studies, 34, 927–947.
25.
Du GayP. (2003). The tyranny of the epochal: Change, epochalism and organizational reform. Organization, 10, 663–684.
26.
Du GayP.MorganG (Eds.) (2013). New spirits of capitalism?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
EndrissatN.IslamG.NoppeneyC. (2015). Enchanting work: New spirits of service work in an organic supermarket. Organization Studies, 36, 1555–1576.
28.
FemiaJ. V. (1981). Gramsci’s political thought: Hegemony, consciousness, and the revolutionary process. Oxford: Clarendon.
29.
FinchelsteinG. (2011). La dictature de l’urgence. Paris: Fayard.
30.
FinemanS. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management Review, 31, 270–291.
31.
FlemingP. (2005). Metaphors of resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 45–66.
32.
FlemingP. (2014). Review Article: When ‘life itself’ goes to work: Reviewing shifts in organizational life through the lens of biopower. Human Relations, 67, 875–901.
33.
FlemingP.RobertsJ.GarstenC. (2013). In search of corporate social responsibility: Introduction to the special issue. Organization, 20, 337–348.
34.
FlemingP.SewellG. (2002). Looking for the good soldier, Svejk: Alternative modalities of resistance in the contemporary workplace. Sociology, 36, 857–873.
35.
FlemingP.SpicerA. (2002). Workers’ playtime?: Unravelling the paradox of covert resistance in organizations. In CleggS. (Ed.), Advances in Organization Studies: Vol. 9. Management and organization paradoxes (pp. 65–85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
36.
FlemingP.SturdyA. (2011). ‘Being yourself’’ in the electronic sweatshop: New forms of normative control. Human Relations, 64, 177–200.
37.
FossN. J. (2003). Selective intervention and internal hybrids: Interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the Oticon spaghetti organization. Organization Science, 14, 331–349.
38.
GabrielY. (1995). The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies and subjectivity. Organization Studies, 16, 477–501.
39.
GetzI. (2009). Liberating leadership: How the initiative-freeing radical organizational form has been successfully adopted. California Management Review, 51(4), 32–58.
40.
GetzI. (2011). 1960s’ lessons learned: Liberating leadership and transformational scholarship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20, 8–12.
41.
GkeredakisE. (2014). The constitutive role of conventions in accomplishing coordination: Insights from a complex contract award project. Organization Studies, 35, 1473–1505.
GolsorkhiD.LecaB.LounsburyM.RamirezC. (2009). Analysing, accounting for and unmasking domination: On our role as scholars of practice, practitioners of social science and public intellectuals. Organization, 16, 779–797.
44.
GomezP.-Y.JonesB. C. (2000). Conventions: An interpretation of deep structure in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 696–708.
45.
HamelG. (2011). First, let’s fire all the managers. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48–60.
HirschhornL. (1998). Reworking authority: Leading and following in the post-modern organization. Organization studies: Vol. 12. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.
48.
HochschildA. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
49.
HodsonR. (1995). Worker resistance: An underdeveloped concept in the sociology of work. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 16, 79–110.
50.
HoonC. (2014). Too taboo to change: How actors address and respond to taboo-breaking issues. Schmalenbach Business Review, 66, 43–72.
51.
HuaultI.Rainelli-WeissH. (2013). The connexionist nature of modern financial markets: From a domination to a justice order? In Du GayP.MorganG. (Eds.), New spirits of capitalism? (pp. 181–205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
JaumierS.DaudigeosT.JoannidèsdeLautourV. (2017). Co-operatives, compromises and critiques: What do French co-operators tell us about individual responses to pluralism? In CloutierC.GondJ.-P.LecaB. (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Vol. 52. Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations. Contributions from French Pragmatist Sociology (pp. 73–106). Emerald Group Publishing.
53.
JenkinsS.DelbridgeR. (2013). In pursuit of happiness: A sociological examination of employee identifications amongst a ‘happy’ call-centre workforce. Organization, 21, 867–887.
KärremanD.AlvessonM. (2009). Resisting resistance: Counter-resistance, consent and compliance in a consultancy firm. Human Relations, 62, 1115–1144.
56.
KazmiB. A.LecaB.NaccacheP. (2016). Is corporate social responsibility a new spirit of capitalism?Organization, 23, 742–762.
57.
KundaG. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
58.
LafayeC.ThévenotL. (1993). Une justification écologique ? Conflits dans l’aménagement de la nature. Revue Française de Sociologie, 34, 495–524.
59.
LalouxF. (2014). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage of human consciousness. Brussels: Nelson Parker.
60.
LandC. (2008). Organizational taboos. In CleggS.BaileyJ. R. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of organization studies (pp. 1195–1197). Los Angeles and London: SAGE Publications.
61.
LeeM. Y.EdmondsonA. C. (2017). Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 35–58.
62.
LeflaiveX. (1996). Organizations as structures of domination. Organization Studies, 17, 23–47.
63.
LevyD. L. (2008). Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of Management Review, 33, 943–963.
64.
LevyD. L.EganD. (2003). A Neo-Gramscian approach to corporate political strategy: Conflict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 803–829.
65.
MacleanM.HarveyC.KlingG. (2014). Pathways to power: Class, hyper-agency and the French corporate elite. Organization Studies, 35, 825–855.
66.
MartinJ. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1(4), 339–359.
67.
MartinJ.KnopoffK.BeckmanC. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 429–469.
68.
NybergD.SpicerA.WrightC. (2013). Incorporating citizens: Corporate political engagement with climate change in Australia. Organization, 20, 433–453.
69.
NybergD.WrightC.KirkJ. (2017). Re-producing a neoliberal political regime: Competing justifications and dominance in disputing fracking. In CloutierC.GondJ.-P.LecaB. (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Vol. 52. Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations. Contributions from French Pragmatist Sociology (pp. 143–171). Emerald Group Publishing.
70.
ParkerM.CheneyG.FournierV.LandC. (Eds.) (2014). The Routledge companion to alternative organization. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge.
71.
PatriottaG.GondJ.-P.SchultzF. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1804–1836.
72.
PetersT. (1992). Liberation management: Necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties. London: Macmillan.
73.
PetersenA.WilligR. (2011). The demand for flexibility as a process of disenfranchisement. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 12, 343–362.
74.
PicardH. (2015). « Entreprises libérées », parole libérée ? Lectures critiques de la participation comme projet managérial émancipateur. PhD Thesis. Paris IX, Paris.
75.
PicardH.IslamG. (2019). ‘Free to Do What I Want’?: Exploring the ambivalent effects of liberating leadership. Organization Studies.
76.
ReddyW. M. (2001). The navigation of feeling: A framework for the history of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77.
ReedM. (2011). The post-bureaucratic organization and the control revolution. In CleggS.HarrisM.HöpflH. (Eds.), Managing modernity. Beyond bureaucracy? (pp. 230–256). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
78.
ReineckeJ.van BommelK.SpicerA. (2017). When orders of worth clash: Negotiating legitimacy in situations of moral multiplexity. In CloutierC.GondJ.-P.LecaB. (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Vol. 52. Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations. Contributions from French Pragmatist Sociology (pp. 33–72). Emerald Group Publishing.
79.
RobertsonB. J. (2015). Holacracy: The new management system for a rapidly changing world. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
80.
ScottJ. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
81.
ScottJ. C. (1990). Arts of resistance: The hidden transcript of subordinate groups. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
82.
SewellG. (1998). The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 397–428.
83.
TaupinB. (2012). The more things change… Institutional maintenance as justification work in the credit rating industry. Management, 15, 528–562.
84.
VinceR.MazenA. (2014). Violent innocence: A contradiction at the heart of leadership. Organization Studies, 35, 189–207.
85.
WillmottH. (1993). Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 515–552.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
