Reconstituting the centrality of power in management and organization studies
本文通过对话形式，反思权力在管理与组织研究中的被忽视现象，结合Clegg的《权力框架》第二版，呼吁重新关注权力与政治在组织生活中的核心作用。
Chris Carter University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom Abstract This dialogue engages in some reflection on the role of power in management and organization studies, prompted by the publication of the second edition of Frameworks of Power, by Stewart R. Clegg (2023). The dialogue includes contributions by Chris Carter, Richard Badham and Andrea Whittle and some thoughts in response by Stewart Clegg. The dialogue begins with an overview by Chris Carter, and then the further contributions both denounce the ‘forgetting of power’ in current views of organizational phenomena—such as leadership, team behaviour and resilience—in which differences in interests and in freedom of choice seem to be missing in action. Andrea Whittle first introduces the relationship between power and leadership, as a neglected topic, followed by Richard Badham, recalling lessons from the past that should not be forgotten. Reflecting on the dialogue, Stewart Clegg responds by relating power's salient dimensions and types to the model of circuits of power and calls for a resuscitation of some classically European management and organization theory ways of thinking about power and democracy. Keywords: circuits of power, democracy, dimensions of power, future-making, leadership, organizations, power relations Absences Over the past 30 years, management and organization studies' theory has expanded considerably, becoming more sophisticated in its theoretical and methodological range. Yet, it often sidesteps crucial aspects of power and politics. Given the undeniable and urgent presence of power and politics in everyday organizational life, this oversight is surprising. Whether it is a profitable business school facing budget cuts from the central university in which it is situated, a government slashing arts' spending to balance the books, a significant supermarket chain squeezing the margins on one of its suppliers, or wealthy polluting countries blocking strong measures to mitigate climate change, these are all demonstrations of power and politics. Power creates winners and losers. Within the broad canon of organization and management theory, there are researchers addressing these issues, but it is rarely the go-to explanation. Instead, our research often fails to confront issues of power and politics directly. As Hardy & Clegg (1996) once said, ‘some dare call it power’, yet three decades on, most researchers prefer to remain quiet on this issue. The complex architectonics of institutional theories' logics and works or the mystical chicanery of process theory often trump the focus on power and politics. Or it might be a case that power hides in plain sight. Early theorists of the modern era of organization theory, which arguably commenced in the 1960s, were more attuned to researching power and politics (Clegg 1975; Pettigrew 1972). Their contributions remain relevant 50 years after their publication. Antecedents This new generation of scholars mirrored developments within social science's central boulevards of theorizing, which were busily escaping Parsons' intellectual straitjacket. Giddens (1971) rediscovered the sociological classics, examining the implications of Marx, Weber and Durkheim for modern society. In particular, he was acutely aware of how social structures reproduce themselves. The community power debates emanating from North America provided significant conceptual and empirical contributions. Most notably, Bachrach & Baratz (1970) highlighted the second face of power, exploring how power works best when behind the scenes. They showed how elites could stop uncomfortable issues from coming to the fore or kill off reforms through non-decision-making and the mobilization of bias. This critical insight is as relevant today as it was then. Fellow travellers, such as Crenson (1971), examined how corporate power prevented anti-pollution ordinances from being adopted, all without the need to intervene formally in politics. This work was produced at a time of political tumult in the United States, and the analysis focused on how power works in practical terms. Steven Lukes (1974) extended the community power debate and coined the term the third dimension of power in his concise but brilliant book. His argument echoed fashionable structuralist analyses of the day. It made the point that power works best when there is no conflict because social agents accept the status quo as inevitable and beyond challenge. This is relevant to understanding why the peasantry or proletariat failed effectively to challenge their conditions in the 18th and 19th centuries or why employees are quiescent in the face of modern-day corporate culture programmes. Similarly, Gaventa (1980) demonstrated how the third dimension of power functioned in the traditional coal mining occupational communities of the Appalachian Valley. Debates come and go (Clegg et al. 2022). Lukes' (1974) introduction of Gramsci's (1971) concept of ‘hegemony’ to a wider audience and his extension of Bachrach & Baratz's (1970) two faces of power into three dimensions led not only to a second edition of the book (Lukes, 2005) in which he discussed some of the response to the first edition. Mark Haugaard developed the three-dimensional model further, adding a fourth dimension of power (Haugaard 2020). Braverman's (1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital proved fruitful for the labour process debate that characterized much work from that date until the present day, although with a declining relevance in recent times. The inheritors of Braverman's conception of power in the workplace are arguably the critical realists, who have, inter alia, made important contributions to understanding workplace resistance (Ackroyd & Thompson and elites the the of a of thinking about power to the more of Lukes or and from the debates about community power that significant in political The European debates to be with the of two or more such as & of labour process theory and a of the Their focus was the which a of power and an research et al. & In organization theory, the debate to on as by and et al. institutional theory, the of intellectual of the 30 years, has much to on most it has on the of power (Clegg the community power debate and the dimensions of power (Haugaard the of and organizational on that were et al. the labour process debates & & and on power not to be or in the Frameworks of power The of the a of to power and politics for Stewart a central in power when a of at the University of in these as as interests in and politics. His from to in the of of this was that he the organization in an of a for scholars of of theoretical is a of its time and work is no His is a in the as is of he the of power and new new and theory, new a to of power, his work in a that was both and It on power as a of it to the and the of work is with the and of power, he views as of or on or his analysis is in the as it not as it should in a dialogue between theoretical and the The of his work is one to and their it is crucial to power and politics. the was the was more book a it the of a and new to the It power on the for the of in the and more to debates on power the social and of power, a with works an for the in and on a new in on the of work was one of the of this In Clegg the of (Clegg et al. This was a as it the canon of organization studies, a new of for the It the of the It provided a The and were a for organization was a of and critical Clegg was one of the central of this with researchers the he (Clegg et al. et al. et al. et al. & Clegg et al. This was one of et al. & not only by his but the with their (Clegg Clegg et al. the point of this a and are by a of with an with in & in organization theory not to in the that made in the to be are to the need to power the then how that was made and that with the role that of power in its (Clegg such as the of and the the of organization studies, should further within and analysis in the of the organization the of business school about the It is important to that the be and for in the present its (Clegg This is a crucial point and one that organizational theorists should The is in a and scholars of all to with its not is an of In three decades from the climate has are culture is and are and it be a of power and politics being for This is the one that be & & (1970) Power and theory and University The of on and University (1974) and the of work in the Carter, & social in organization and management & The of and organizational new to and theory, in the of Carter, & as Carter, & the case of the climate on Power, and a critical and empirical understanding of power in sociological theory and organizational and and of as R. Power, and and of Power in and & Frameworks of (1996) The of the of in the a on and and in organization The power and missing in in institutional of Frameworks of power, edition. Carter, & being a European & Power and & and in management and organization of Hardy & (1996) of organization & a on organization theory from the of the & organizational and & The of (1971) The of a of non-decision-making in the University The University of R. the of labour process & and organizational & and in University and a of in the of the works of (1980) Power and and in an Appalachian University of (1971) and modern social an analysis of the of Marx, Durkheim and University The of society. & and power in the as a of the and labour process & dare call it & of organization The of a theoretical analysis of power, and University The dimensions of University & (1971) theory of & a of it a and resistance in the of and in the the of & when the and for in a work of & Power and at from to in social & Labour process & The of the and of in European of & as the case of Carter, & the as of (1974) a a second edition. & theory in business and management present status and & organization of R. & R. Clegg organization theory and & labour process the of and the relevance of as a power & the through the of the power and elites in organization from the to The University of & The politics of and in & and of Andrea Whittle University of United Kingdom Most researchers to on their of analysis on in their and to their at that researchers in to the who the of or the of in researchers more at the examining the between and their researchers who in to or issues at the and the and of and scholars to work all these for how are to in a Power be in the most as is when Clegg the to on a of a The is between on a and is from book Power, and (Clegg It that were at squeezing of their when in that the into which were was not The that the were the of in the it most because it provided an to how this one of at the could into was on the The could be not only as a of power in its but as a of to which the analysis of power relations could then the of in the workplace and the structures of the relations between the and their and these and their as as the and their and these between the and a of conceptual were between the of and in and and the theorists of and such as This with the between the of and and the of and their structures some of the best work in our In of power from the social analysis to on political about the of power, community power and it to from of the and social and from on the of of and from and from about in the of of and the It was such that were into a theoretical model of a of power relations by Clegg to an of the of the The first is the power power conflict or power be The second is the conflict and is not because this the social and which relations of and and which creates social The third is the the of through of such as the of The of the present status of and research into power and in business The present is both and at the in The is that about power remain and in some some and some more European has a role in the of about power with exploring power relations in as as in & and the of said, scholars on the to which is with its to power as an and its to and corporate as and or on the to which about and corporate power are or It is not for researchers or in or in to of such in is in the current of and research into exploring in recent years in is arguably one of the most and in business school are are not but the of the and research the are being to about how to or are being to the and it with the term or of this of is that scholars seem to the that in in the or as organizational scholars to call in the past & of power that their in the organizational and the of and in to or but it is for the to for The is that of power is from all but a critical on & It is as these that employees at work are the who on a climate and by their and but to of or of or in It is as these that employees could their and not to their to with no on and their and their in the as could that not to on and at power from the of organizational leadership, a is at are the of and are the of and workplace Instead, who to or their when their behaviour or with et al. for the or scholars to to be that it was for that and employees are in a power & some about which with of the made (Clegg It is a for and their to that all of and from the workplace to be with a and process of being or as in the of power This be and are to in our understanding of power in and the there is no need to research the of on the of to and or the of that to and these is an is not is no need to research and government or the behind these is a and is it to with & that the from of between and employees by and is a but to the debate about the that should be most about need to power and in the analysis of management and the in this dialogue in that a in power in organizational life, as as the theoretical with which to of be in these Power, and a critical and empirical understanding of power in sociological theory and organizational and and of as R. Power, and and of Power in and & Frameworks of power, edition. & and power in a as a of European & of power and & on the of corporate & to exploring of and in a of management & & the the of and the role of of & in who should European Richard Badham University of a recent was on organizational and team a to into a was no of are all in this the as and about the were about how or failed to without of or of was as an without of the and interests and of team that the of the audience such issues as to as of the an from some and from not which was about power and organizations, thoughts to this was of the of one of is the In this were in but when one of management such as management and on, these were often neglected or might the with researching or organizational a of theory and on power and politics is discussed in of theory or when it to of and institutional power are The of power, how to how to it and how to it in its its its and its or is in the concept of circuits of power that of the traditional and debates that of their The of power is in of interests and The of and mobilization of the social of interests and of are and by and of power et al. and Clegg with Steven Lukes' three-dimensional of power on its yet in a that of The of power is to research and in and to in as when to such to management et al. In such to power and politics & Clegg was of for of the and of by an of political into of and institutional this and on its power in management and organization on power and politics & Badham, Clegg & the and contributions of power are often more often present in their and in organizational of it to the of and change, for of power and politics are all often to and and of to as a of or Badham & is this the This is a and one is to to the and of power an that is to be for as as about to the and of and the of modern by the and social by the of and It be to is more explanation. Power is to in the research and the This is made more in the modern In his Clegg the of the ‘forgetting of power’ be the of the as the traditional more and of power to he not significant the power by the and and of an and its This is an argument about is not a to a in which organizational and power in its as a central in the understanding of to and about circuits of power and and an of the theoretical and debates that the analysis of to to a of the of power and its in modern conditions when and change, to such traditional of mobilization of and organizational & Badham Clegg et al. The of politics and power in all dimensions of organizational life, as as the intellectual to should not be forgotten. a new and of the theoretical and empirical relevance of of power’ be much to for as of this Badham, R. & of organizational & Badham, R. Power, politics and organizational change, edition. & for organization Frameworks of power, edition. Clegg & Haugaard The of a edition. The is the of and Badham, & and and politics. The of Stewart Clegg University of in North and European to power and North organization theory and that by it in its to the analysis of power in from much that is European social The to power has on and theory et al. et al. their developed in with the of power in the wider social Lukes' (1974) work and the debates it prompted in European political and organization theory Hardy & seem to in a but to these organization of the might be of the of power to leadership, as the to this dialogue Richard Badham and Andrea Whittle as in its to management and organization studies' of power is central to and is to leadership, some from a theory of power only focused on power of the of by some management and organization on The organization power for the of and as a on power and et al. that as a of through of the management with It the of of power as a power in ways the and conception of power by an a to not is a conception that has much of management and organization research into power in the there are ways of between the most of power, as and the of and developed et al. 2022). Power be as a a and which one through works by and and into such as and & The types of power as and come into focus in these contributions in and differences by & when that the three types of power seem into three of the central debates about power as Lukes and power as & power by to that not to power to a to a for a on a for with on work by power with to a work with to lessons to and are in such a as to some are as then (1971) analysis of the politics of non-decision-making in two and on the of in the issues be to the by new with the power to challenge in crucial such as the which aspects of as into as a power with from of issues and Power with and through and Power with that interests to through interests are by then the is in ways that argument that elites the of a in the work of is as views on Power to in everyday when to theoretical of might be and broad in such as the or in which views are with of and in circuits of power that as interests not be by power with through The and in et and the work of in about past conflict and of and and the need for present of these The three-dimensional is but It has no of process of how one or dimension might be or which is of the circuits of power model (Clegg is most significant about the three dimensions with the three types is to three-dimensional In Lukes' (1974) it was as a of not their which in the is the case the argument has to the present of as as the more of the third dimension to and then it is that only these of power by with the the circuits of power, that are being the of recent on circuits of power being as as more or circuits et al. Similarly, the and was to past circuits of to the and to that were only as the to the of the in et al. In that and organizational are being with as of by government and organizations, a of power at an with the and being only the most recent are ways to and one of our might be to these power relations and are that not power organizations, such as that the of and debate and that are not of be as with all the and that Power relations are the of being in a as were a and that is why the circuits of power model is for & et al. et al. & & Clegg & et al. et al. It is a for the and of empirical power the thinking about circuits of power that three-dimensional is that management and organization as that to and In the these were of European management and organization studies, in debates about & the of the on North these issues not often a of organization and management The is with might As and of democracy. should stop at the organizational its power and to be a not only for everyday but for about and the United of the thinking of and their It is to of these as as issues for such be and are being it should be that understanding and are The are and there are there be politics and power a of politics and how power relations and management need to be in the of on these to be such The of politics from much of their and is a the that management and organization scholars with is one in which power relations not to for that much of their time in complex organizations, such as As a from a conceptual of and as power’ (Clegg power’ is a It both a and a that a power’, as as a process that more or of a need more to power’ in all its in the of that the in which The of is the most of the of It is a in which et al. their as a of as a that their power’ and the on the of their as a of a a in the interests of in power are social and organizational in a They management and organization theory a of They both and in the case by the of relations that their theoretical & (1980) The of & and climate a analysis of political to the the of The and the of the of & Power, and a critical and empirical understanding of power in sociological theory and organizational and and of as a in the & & and and and The of as a in the & & Power and of & and in management and organization of University & Power, and social social (1971) The of a of non-decision-making in the University & of power and & of power and & on the to is and of and & of power in as of and on in the of political & The power behind implications for research and & in the social and & that The & a of & as circuits of an & (1974) a a edition. and institutional in R. leadership, a and & new for & The of an of to in the & of and circuits of in & the concept of political of the The be not exploring why are some implications for and & and the case of and & The for power in of of the for & R. of a of to an in a government R. & R. and the circuits of power in a of and and in political Chris Carter is an who organization and management theory and on how in their organizations, how and how His focus is on and he and works with in politics and Richard Badham has a at the in and is an has developed and led and for the European the Chris at and as as government and in and is the of the Power, and and of as as of of in as as book and and on organizational and Andrea research is by a for understanding the role of in management and is by and from the of and has research on management organizational change, and research has focused on in and and Stewart Clegg is a of management at the University of and of the University of a of to and books, some of which from and the of a of of Fellow of the and of and a Fellow of the of the of his is the second edition of Frameworks of Power (2023).