Corporate Robespierres: ideologies of management and change

Citation

(2007), "Corporate Robespierres: ideologies of management and change", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm.2007.02320baa.002

Corporate Robespierres: ideologies of management and change

Juup Essers, RSM Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands, E-mail: jessers@rsm.nlSteffen Böhm, University of Essex, UK, E-mail: sgbohm@essex.ac.ukJohn Roberts, Judge Business School, Cambridge University, UK, E-mail: j.roberts@jbs.com.ac.uk, andAlessia Contu, LUMS, Lancaster University, UK, E-mail: a.contu@lancaster.ac.uk

Theoretical approaches to the role of ideologies in management and change have been inspired by critical theories from the Frankfurt School onwards. Amongst the recent and most outspoken representatives of the critical turn, ZÏizÏek's reversal of traditional conceptions of ideology as ''false consciousness'' into an un/conscious behavioural practice of ''living a lie'' has convincingly challenged Western celebrations of the ``end of ideology'' (or even history). Embedded in a Lacanian theoretical framework (especially the ISR-triad and the function of Master- signifiers as points de capiton to enable the formation of stable imaginary or symbolic identities), ZÏizÏek's views enable researchers to study the ``normal'' practice of organization, both symbolic and social, as fundamentally ideological. Organizations can thus be perceived as ideological cover-up operations masking the impossible-real core of our individual and social being. Organizations are not just occasionally unfortunate enactments of misguided fantasies (think of Enron's top management enacting Star Wars in corporate boardrooms). Organizing is a cover-up by nature – there is always something to hide, conceal, repress, dominate, mystify or eradicate, while the mission of modern Organization Theory has primarily been to hide that there is something to hide. Avoiding confrontation with the real is what organizing is all about.

For the study of organizational change, ZÏizÏek's fascination with the figure of Robespierre and the period of the Jacobin Reign of Terror – together with the reaction to its excessive violence by philosophers such as Kant, Hegel and German Idealism in general – furnishes interesting material for the analysis of contemporary processes and principles of organizational change. To a significant extent, current managerial theories, models and narratives of change are still used, if not to submit organizational masses into comfortable meekness or prudent silence, then at least to imbue the executors of organizational change programs with an attitude of relentlessly ''taking charge'' without feeling bad about it. According to ZÏizÏek, Robespierre was an expert in manipulating those who witnessed the upheaval caused by the violent change processes, implying that anybody who showed signs of anxieties were traitors to the Cause for letting their personal feelings overrule the General Will (ZÏizÏek, 2005, Interrogating the Real, 225).

For ZÏizÏek, in our times the hedonistic connotations of global capitalism come dangerously close to a comparable Robespierrian ``duty to be happy'' when our freedom to follow an ideal, any ideal – in our roles as consumers, citizens and organizational members – is only restricted by the superego- command to succeed, leaving behind our fears and worries about the costs for realizing our plans, however obvious, at the doorstep to our public lives. Today, it seems that failing to be happy (and to use the institutions of our free, market-driven consumer society to this effect) is the ultimate breach of Law. In this sense our freedom is a ''forced choice'' to pursue our self- actualization to the fullest, to conquer all domains of life, to charge ahead, progress and change continuously.

Such an ideology of (relentless) change is part and parcel of contemporary practices of management and organizing, which often explicitly claim to be non-ideological. Following a ZÏizÏekian analysis, this fetishisation of change is the ideology of contemporary global capitalism. But, then, can all practices of organization be legitimately viewed as ideological cover-ups that try to hide something, something that can ultimately not be totally hidden? How can these cover-up strategies be resisted? Are organizational practices of resistance subject to the same ideological trap? In other words, if, according to ZÏizÏek and others, every type of organizing involves ideological processes, where does this leave discourses and practices of resistance and emancipation, of progressive societal and organizational change?

Tracing such questions in contemporary spheres of organized and managed life, we invite contributions to this special issue that explore and respond to the following (non-exclusive) themes:

• •

  Theoretical analyses and critiques of ZÏizÏek's (or Lacan's) contribution to contemporary theories of organizational change management;

• •

  Engagements with theories of ideology and their relevance for the study of management and change;

• •

  Reconceptualizations of the ideological deep-structure of standard concepts, themes and narratives in recent theories of organizational change and design (''change marketing'' resistance to change, motivation theory, organizational learning, innovation, etc.);

• •

  Evaluations of ideological change processes recently experienced in so-called Transition countries (e.g. Eastern Europe);

• •

  Critical studies on the ethics of leadership and governance (e.g. the issue of dirty hands, leadership roles and effectiveness, issues of trust and transparency, the psychological contract in organizations, etc.);

• •

  Studies of resistances against ideological commitment and domination; the role of emancipatory discourses and practices in contemporary spheres of non-capitalist organizing;

• •

  Empirical research papers on organizational change processes that highlight practices of securing commitment and success; and

• •

  Methodological analyses of the impact of ideological bias on organizational change research;

The guest issue of JOCM will appear in mid-2008. Abstracts of proposed papers should be submitted to Juup Essers (jessers@rsm.nl) by May 1, 2007. After acceptance authors are expected to submit first drafts of their papers by June 1, 2007. Reviews will be forwarded to them by September 1, 2007. Final, revised versions are ultimately due by January 1, 2008.