Towards a Critical Management Science Stephen Wood and John Kelly

Transcription

1 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page 65 Towards a Critical Management Science Stephen Wood and John Kelly 5 Introduction The objective of this paper is to discuss the work of several authors who have recently critically evaluated management science (including what is broadly termed organizational theory) and attempted to direct research and thinking about management and production systems away from the existing acceptance of the dominant values of society. 1 In this paper we are not then concerned to systematically describe, outline and categorize the nature of those activities, such as operations research (O.R.), organizational analysis, industrial and occupational psychology, which are sometimes placed under the umbrella term of management sciences. But, rather, what we are concerned to do is outline and evaluate the emerging radical critique of (and possible alternatives to) the traditional manageriallyorientated management science. We will take as given that the common strand running between the various existing approaches to management is primarily an historical one, that is that they have grown out of or against (if not in total opposition to) what is generally described as scientific management or Taylorism. 2 We are sensitive to the fact that attempts to distinguish different approaches to management have, by and large, been based on ad hoc criteria rather than been guided by any coherent ordering principles. 3 However, our attention will be focused on the literature that has been critical of traditional management sciences and, thus, only the way in which this literature has treated and defined the tasks and methods of management research is of relevance to the present task. Source: Journal of Management Studies, 15(1) (1978): 1 24.

2 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page Critical Management Studies It is interesting, as well as relevant to our present concern, to note that criticisms of Taylorism have rarely, if at all, questioned Taylor s quest for a scientific management. 4 Fundamental criticisms lumped Taylor with Mayoism and Human Relations and other movements, and criticized it for its managerial bias, and not so much for its method or application or scientific principles. A standard criticism made by many sociologists, as we have mentioned, is that an industrial sociology which takes as its starting point Taylorism and Human Relations will tend to be biased and thus perhaps should be neglected and even dismissed. It was not until the sixties that anybody fundamentally questioned the adequacy of the famous Hawthorne studies, 5 but here again the emphasis was on the researcher s particular application of scientific procedures rather than the procedures themselves. Of course, it is important to recognize that at the time that these criticisms of managerialism were being made there was a widespread belief in, and quest for, a value-free social science, and hence that any criticism of a mode of operation as being biased towards a particular interest thus amounted to a criticism of its scientific status. 6 But, on the other hand, it may also be recognized that the idea of a valuefree sociology is predicated on the basis of the fact-value distinction and the idea that there are statements about the world which can be evaluated without reference to values. And thus it may be argued that in any special field of social sciences the information that arises from its practice has nothing to do with the character of the people who use the information. 7 It is perhaps because of this that Albrow 8 was able to put forward one of the most serious and thorough attacks on the scientific, as opposed to managerial, status of management sciences, or to be more particular, organization theory. It was based on assuming that what distinguished organizational analysis from the sociological study of organizations was that the latter was concerned with knowledge and, hence, was scientific, and the former was concerned to use this and other knowledge in the furtherance of certain ends, usually taken to be those of the dominant élite(s) or top management or some allegedly neutral notion such as survival. Organizational theory is thus, if anything, a technology, not concerned, as the sociologist is, with understanding. Given this, the scientific social scientist could largely dismiss managerially-orientated studies and pursue his pure and assumingly at least academically more legitimate pursuits. But if, as the critical or radical theories argue, we should not divorce ourselves from the world of practical intentions in the name of objectivity and value freedom, as for example Albrow implies, it becomes important to question and possibly reject the assumption that practical industrial studies mean a concern for managerial problems and outcomes. Does the study of organization necessarily involve supporting the particular forms that they take currently? Cannot the problem of organization be defined to admit of a radical approach?

3 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page 67 Wood and Kelly Towards a Critical Management Science 67 There have been several currents of thinking in diverse, but interrelated areas of study, which have served to question the basis of the criticisms of management thinking and theory made by those who tend to dismiss it. Firstly, there has been the somewhat eclectic, but nevertheless potentially revolutionary debate concerning the nature and development of science such that, for example, greater emphasis is now placed on the reality as opposed to the logic of scientific study, the impingement of ideology in science, and the somewhat blurred and ill-defined nature of the commonsense distinction between technology and science. 9 Secondly, there has been the resurrection or resurgence of Marxist theory, which has both fostered and been aided by the publication of important (for gaining an understanding of Marx s method), but previously neglected texts, such as Grundrisse. Not only does Marxist thinking seriously question the fact-value distinction, but it also serves to shed some light on the nature of the relation between science and the capitalist mode of production and hence technology. It is, at least partly, in the light of the first development that writers working very much within the traditional concerns of management sciences have begun to criticize and attempt to change the basis of its activity. Thus, for example, the work of Churchman and others is leading to greater awareness of the nature and problems of scientific research which one author has argued could revolutionize traditional, quantitative operations research. 10 On the other hand, writers who have been less integrated into the existing management sciences, such as Hales and Whitley, have been more influenced by the Marxist revival than Churchman, and have attempted to develop a radical management research which, if not based on Marxism, does at least owe a great deal to this tradition. The principal concern of this paper is to critically evaluate several writers, who may not have answered the sort of questions noted above, but whose writings about the possibility of a new management research serve at least to raise such questions. In particular we are principally concerned with the work of Churchman, Hales and Whitley. They all want to demonstrate (principally by example our addition) that it is worth directing some very fundamental criticism at the activities which put themselves forward hopefully as the science of managerial practice 11, without at the same time implying that the quest for a specialist management studies is either redundant, inherently conservative, positively dangerous, or that it necessarily simply involves the problem of management (i.e. the problem of motivation). 12 These three authors are also related to the debates around Marxism, and over the question of science and values. Churchman belongs very clearly within the latter category, his principal focus being on the values underlying operations research, and he concludes that we need to debate values and not simply take them as given. Hales and Whitley have both written explicitly within a Marxist tradition, and although Hales in fact agrees with Churchman

4 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page Critical Management Studies on the importance of values, he ends up pleading for a management science which is orientated to a particular set of values, namely self-management. He adds an important historical dimension to the discussion of existing management theory, arguing that changes in economic and industrial structures over the past fifty years or so have not only led to the growth of management science, but also have affected the type and content of the theories developed. Whitley goes beyond this and implicitly argues for a more detailed consideration of both values and the different types of organizational forms within capitalism than Hales provides, which is somewhat ad hoc and even post hoc. The Broadening of Management Science: the Need to Debate Values C. W. Churchman has been highly influential in the development of O.R. 13 His early work displayed many of the characteristics of O.R., but always revealed a concern for fundamental issues of methodology and not simply a technical orientation. 14 To some extent his criticisms of O.R. in his latest work apply to his own earlier work. But here we are not concerned to evaluate the extent to which Churchman has fundamentally changed his position. Rather, we shall concentrate on his paper (published in 1970) 15 in which he presents a general overview of O.R. and its problems. Many of the arguments are, we feel, of a general nature, and not simply applicable to the quantitatively orientated management science. The starting point for his analysis is the observation that O.R. is not, apparently, concerned with social problems such as poverty, pollution and privacy 16 and this he takes as indicative of a deeper malaise within the discipline. On the assumption that the education and training of the practitioners of O.R. is either responsible for this demise, or is capable, in principle, of bringing about its amelioration, he proceeds to analyse what he calls the educational base of O.R. This task is begun by presenting a contradictory picture of O.R. today on the one hand it professes the highest standards of science and objectivity and seeks to clarify issues, provide rigorous assessments and unambiguous evaluations of solutions to problems. On the other hand, it admits that human behaviour is exceedingly complex and difficult to quantify, and that uncertainty and ambiguity will inevitably characterize the work of the practitioner. This contradiction between theory and practice is taken as a critical analytic tool in Churchman s investigation of O.R. It is first necessary to define O.R., the object of the enquiry, and this Churchman does as follows: O.R.... is the securing of improvement in social systems by means of scientific method. 17 He then proceeds to examine each of the various aspects of this definition to assess the significance in each case of the general contradiction between theory and practice.

5 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page 69 Wood and Kelly Towards a Critical Management Science 69 With regard to scientific method the problem, for Churchman, is that this method comprises both rationalist and empiricist aspects, whereas in fact the prevailing orthodoxy in O.R. education is heavily empiricist and, hence, obscures the question of the theoretical structures which underpin observations of the world. The result is that assumptions about social systems are left unexamined and tend, therefore, to be drawn from the articulated and often conservative views of those actually involved in the management of the system under consideration. In connection with social systems three defects in the current education of practitioners are noted: the failure to analyse what, in fact, is meant by a system, and the associated problem of defining systemic boundaries given that one system is almost invariably embedded in another; the assumption that decisions are made only by those at the top of organizations; and the supposition that social systems necessarily serve the clients they claim to be serving. The third element of Churchman s definition that of improvement rests on preliminary analysis of ethical assumptions. According to Churchman s earlier analysis (see above) various kinds of assumptions are already implicit in much O.R. and, indeed, on the basis of rationalist empiricist scientific method this is necessarily the case whenever empirical work is being done. He therefore proposes that objectivity should be arrived at through the confrontation of theoretical perspectives, that is, on the basis of Hegelian objectivity. The ethic of O.R., he argues, should be an enabling theory of value, according to which, although different people want different things, everybody wants to have what he wants. In addition he adds the basic moral principle, drawn from Kant, that O.R. should treat people as ends only and never as means to ends. The final item securing is dealt with briefly, and consists essentially in an exhortation to O.R. practitioners to remain above politics and continue to work for their overall objective of system improvement. The practical proposals resulting from this analysis are then outlined in the form of conclusions to the paper and follow fairly closely the issues outlined there, viz. the articulation of assumptions, challenging orthodox power structures within the profession and refurbishing the O.R. community. In assessing this paper as a general critique of management science, it has to be said that several of the arguments advanced by Churchman are clearly sound. It is the case that assumptions need to be examined in any scientific activity, and it is, arguably, the case that the confrontation of theoretical perspectives is the only substantial way in which this can be done. That is, one can never simply oppose pure facts to theories, since facts are themselves the products of theory. However, in so far as he locates the problems of O.R. in a contradiction between theory and practice, and sets out to create a convergency of the two along more ethically acceptable lines, Churchman himself falls into a number of seemingly intractable contradictions. To begin with

6 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page Critical Management Studies he completely fails to take seriously his own principle of the embeddedness of social systems, in so far as he treats the educational system of O.R. in isolation from the wider society, of which, according to this principle, it must inevitably form a part. By thus failing to recognize the constraints on O.R. and the material bases on which O.R. is constructed, he lapses into voluntaristic remedies for the profession s sickness, and advocates such measures as unstructured meetings, the publication of failed experiments, etc. A further consequence of his treatment of education in isolation from wider social forces is that he regards the (often conservative) assumptions in O.R. as a product of the methods of education. To put the matter simply, students are not taught to examine their assumptions and thus acquire, or have reinforced, those assumptions (about society, organizations, etc.) that are most readily accessible, i.e. those which happen to be the most conservative. Alternatively, according to Churchman, students may over-react to such orthodoxy and develop ultra-radical views. But the problem however is not that specific assumptions are made about society, etc., for there would seem to be no a priori reason why discussion of assumptions per se should result in the rejection of conservatism, but that assumptions in general are let pass without comment in the education and daily practice of O.R. Certainly the latter problem is capable of rectification through educational reforms, but there is no mention of those sources of assumptions and ideas which are located outside the educational sphere and, hence, no theory to understand them and no strategy to counter them. Churchman, in fact, has failed to distinguish necessary and sufficient conditions for change, since, although it may be necessary to examine assumptions and engage in theoretical controversy in order to radically alter the discipline, it by no means follows that these are sufficient conditions. Indeed one suspects they are far from sufficient as there would appear to be nothing inherently radical in the various organizational recommendations of Churchman that could not be implemented by the existing profession. Here, as with the issue of assumptions in O.R., Churchman has confused the general and the particular because existing organizations appear bureaucratic and inert, it is inferred that organization per se is the culprit and should therefore be abandoned, at least temporarily. The question of values also is raised by the debate between Ackoff and his critics. 18 Ackoff claims it is possible to reconcile the interests of different sections of organizations, and of organizations and society, an assertion based, in part, on a number of case studies of organizational change. Although his critics make a number of valid points about the cases, and about Ackoff s arguments, e.g. pointing out that it is more useful to discuss social incompatibility of objectives, rather than logical incompatibility, a number of the criticisms are very weak. 19 They include, for instance, the complaint that the reconciliation achieved in one case was only apparent and could not be

7 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page 71 Wood and Kelly Towards a Critical Management Science 71 guaranteed and, in another, that whilst women inspectors had secured potentially higher earnings as well as a job-and-finish clause, their domestic roles remained unchanged. 20 These criticisms are accompanied by formal assertions of the inevitability of worker-employer conflict, unrelated to any theoretical underpinnings. It is thus difficult to see how one could connect these formal assertions to reality, or to use them in the construction of a critical management science. The Promise of Management Science the Promise of Self-management But if Churchman largely ignores the social context and, hence, the material bases of O.R., the same cannot be said of the work of Hales. 21 His article marks a significant advance over the work just reviewed in so far as it attempts an historical and materialist analysis of the forms and inter-relations of management science, from Taylor s scientific management up to the present day. The point of departure for Hales is the view that management science, if scientific, ought to generate techniques and insights that are of relevance outside the immediate context of the discipline and that, if it is non-ideological, it ought to permit our perception of some of the deeper developmental tendencies within capitalism. However, precisely because society is capitalist there exists the necessity to legitimate class rule, in this case, through the production of ideological science. Thus, Hales, as Churchman does, begins his analysis on the basis of a contradiction again between theory and practice, but the substance of the contradiction is rather different. The first section of his work seeks to illustrate the outcomes of this contradiction in two systems of management science O.R., and socio-technical systems (S.T.S.) theory and he starts by examining an early Coal Board study of labour turnover, in which it was found that turnover correlated with factors such as seniority, distance from home to work and availability of housing. The policy decisions that followed involved the provision of bus services and cheap housing for employees, but did not however have anything to say about the conditions of work and people s responses to them. The point Hales makes here is that the study, although morally bad in so far as it treated people as objects, was nevertheless scientifically good in so much as people-as-objects, and not people per se, were the focus of the enquiry. But since people are not in fact objects, but social subjects, the study, from this perspective, Hales argues, is scientifically bad, because it distorts, and is hence unable to capture its proper object. This reification of the social subject does not at first sight appear to characterize socio-technical systems (S.T.S.) theory, one of the more sophisticated of recent developments in management science. Theorists of this school

8 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page Critical Management Studies have themselves argued that S.T.S. is a necessary response to social and technological change, since technologies are becoming increasingly automated, thus necessitating a shift from crude manual skills to cognitive and perceptual skills. At the same time workers are themselves becoming more educated and beginning to demand more fulfilling work and greater participation in decisions that affect their lives. It so happens, however, that the new technologies will provide precisely those tasks and roles for which workers are clamouring and, hence, these two developments, the social and the technological, will converge, thus reinforcing the view of S.T.S. theory that social and technical systems in an organization must be examined as a whole and not separately. But, as Hales remarks, this view of societal change not only accepts technology as a given and immutable force, but is also predicated on a value consensus, such that management and employees are seen as being able to work together and, furthermore, are having to do so in order to resolve the problems arising from increased environmental turbulence, or uncertainty. The fact that management still defines the problems and the objectives of production leads Hales to conclude that the autonomy, freedom and responsibility of workers in the new technologies constitute a false praxis, 22 and that in so far as people are still regarded as functional parts of a total production system, S.T.S. differs from O.R. only in the greater sophistication of its manipulation of social subjects for managerial, i.e. capitalist, purposes. Having thus demonstrated the inadequacies of both O.R. and S.T.S. theory, Hales proceeds to lay the foundation for the remainder of his analysis:... I shall try to show that the inability of management science to recognize and develop the full social character of the system it studies is not (fundamentally) a theoretical or technical shortcoming but rather a consequence of the social, political, and economic interest with which management science identifies, and which is reflected in the methodological and conceptual structures of the science. 23 The major developments in twentieth-century capitalism that are seen as central determinants of management science are the centralization and internationalization of capital. These interconnected processes necessitate the development of planning to control and regulate increasingly complex and fluctuating markets for labour, raw materials, capital, and commodities a development that is reflected in the evolution of management science from its inception. Three categories of scientific work in industry are distinguished, each of which constitutes a response to particular developments within capitalism, and these function as the conceptual framework into which Hales installs the history of management science. Further, each of these categories constitutes an appropriation of some aspect of reality: Taylorism, or scientific management, continued the appropriation of technical skills from

9 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page 73 Wood and Kelly Towards a Critical Management Science 73 the workforce and their relocation in technology and in experts, a process that had long been a feature of capitalism. The appropriation of a second aspect of reality, of objective social relations was, however, unique to scientific management, for it was Taylor s achievement to have systematically begun the structural socialization of labour (of objective social relations ) that is, to have provided a method,... by which the productive activities of individuals could be orchestrated as moments in the movement of a single whole. 24 Technical O.R. has set itself the same project as scientific management, but differs from it in that it seeks control through the creation of integrated and self-regulatory systems, rather than through an intensified division of labour coupled with external supervision and financial incentives. It also differs from scientific management in terms of its implications for organizational structure, since where the latter implied an increased centralization of decision-making, O.R. can result in either centralization or decentralization. These differences reflect changes in capitalism itself, namely the growing centralization of capital. To what developments in capitalism, then, do S.T.S. theory and O.R. correspond? To the extent that it seeks (at least in theory) to clarify alternative solutions to problems, as well as to discuss objectives of organizations, O.R. is regarded as a response to the... progressive rationalization of this complex division of labour, since Rationalization requires that objectives be clarified.... Management science thus... enters the domain of praxis through seeking the appropriation of subjective social relations, the third aspect of reality referred to earlier. However, autonomy and other aspects of new work roles in the new technologies constitute, as we have already observed, a false praxis, a managed praxis, since these new roles are both initiated from outside the subjects and develop within an instrumental logic (of capital accumulation) that is external to the subjects involved. Thus management science (comprising O.R. and S.T.S. theory) and scientific management stand in a dialectical relationship to one another whilst the latter appropriates, primarily, objective social relations, the former appropriates both objective and subjective social relations. Yet simultaneously, this difference in appearance masks a unity in essence: both seek to appropriate the praxis of subordinates and harness it to the achievement of capitalist objectives. The significance of this work is perhaps revealed more clearly now and full credit is due to Hales for his theoretical advance in the comprehension of management science in the capitalist epoch. For what may appear on the surface to be isolated intellectual developments are, in fact, revealed as reflections of, and responses to, developments in the infrastructure of capitalism itself. This permeation of super-structural phenomena is epitomized in the denial of praxis and the transformation of social subjects into economic

10 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page Critical Management Studies objects. And even the most apparently advanced management science S.T.S. theory has been unmasked as an attempt to facilitate not true, but false, or manipulated, praxis, and this... under the specific imperatives of modern capitalism. 26 The question before us then is the famous What is to be done? : how can management science avoid this subjugation of itself to external forces? The answer given by Hales is as follows: the science which services this development the objective socialization of labour carries in it the tacit promise of other modes of rational organization of society. 27 So there is hope at least, but then we are told: In a class-divided, hierarchically-structured, capitalist society this promise must remain suppressed. 28 Indeed, the promise can only be realized by: Organized, self-conscious agents In other words the basic problem of management science the denial of praxis, requires for its solution praxis! Since this proposal clearly will not take us very far, we must return to Hales analysis of management science in order to discover the causes of this programmatic poverty. Although for Hales, false praxis... can only develop actively by reference to images of its opposite, self-management True praxis, involving the full dimensions of people, people as social subjects, remains throughout his work as an abstraction that is never concretized. At no point in the article does Hales develop his concept of praxis in relation to the mystifications which he properly criticizes. Particular case studies, such as that of the Norwegian pulp mill, in which employees were given more autonomy and responsibility in order that the company might better achieve its objectives are criticized on the grounds that they constitute a false, or manipulated, praxis. Indeed, the essence of praxis lies precisely in the fact that it cannot be given. Whilst such criticism is undoubtedly justified, it is nevertheless one-sided, and ultimately just as undialectical as the management science to which it is being opposed. For as Hales comments in relation to scientific management, capitalism itself creates the conditions under which production becomes progressively planned and socialized. Equally, in relation to advanced technologies, capitalism does not simply de-skill the workforce and confront it with its skills embodied in technology and in experts, as Hales claims. Rather, it de-skills only a part of it, whilst a smaller section of technicians and other specialists is trained in the general management and supervision of the whole productive process. Hence, at the same time as the work force may be divided and isolated, higher and middle management may itself become even more isolated and be seen to play little or no role in the process of production per se. The point is that

11 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page 75 Wood and Kelly Towards a Critical Management Science 75 the treatment of people as objects through the theoretical constitution of false praxis as the object of enquiry, does in fact capture a significant aspect of capitalist social reality. People are treated as objects and, if they were not, there would be no rationale for the Marxist theory of capitalism and no necessity to transcend current society. In relation to Hale s underdeveloped concept of praxis, defined as... self-conscious, self-developing social activity, 31 there runs throughout the work the concept of necessity, used in connection with the development of management science under capitalism. For it seems that not only does management science appropriate or deny authentic praxis amongst subordinates, but that the science itself is the result of a false praxis, or a response to the imperatives of laissez-faire and monopoly capitalism. Although again this is undoubtedly true in part, it seems, for example, somewhat oversimplified to account for the growth of O.R. and S.T.S. theory in terms of the progressive rationalization of the division of labour, especially if this itself is left unexplained. It is one thing to argue that O.R. appears to be functional for a particular stage of capitalist development, but quite another to transform this functionalism into a causal explanation. We do not doubt that O.R. is functional for capitalism, but was this the only possible mode of development of management science and, if not, why was it that O.R., and not some other perspective, emerged? However, if management science is at present an ideological reflection (to a large degree) of the requirements of capitalism, then on what basis are we to reconstruct the discipline? It cannot be done solely by reference to current management science, since by this means we would incorporate the limitations of that science, and yet simultaneously have no means of transcending them. Nor can it be done, as Hales suggests, by reference to the full dimensions of people as social subjects since if we knew through experience what these dimensions were there would be no necessity to surpass capitalism. Indeed such a notion is ultimately idealistic in so far as any attempt to render it meaningful can succeed only in imposing extra-rational constraints on the concept of human nature, or else in adding a further series of empty categories to those already extant. Hence, although the work of Hales is both valuable and significant, it has reached and exposed its own limitations. Without a fuller analysis of the social relations of capitalist production we will be left awaiting the spontaneous praxis of self-conscious agents to deliver us from the mystifications of ideological science. The Importance of History It is in this context that the work of Whitley assumes significance, for he has set himself the task of producing, not only a critique of management science, but an alternative to it. The two papers, written in 1974, take up these tasks

12 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page Critical Management Studies although one is more oriented to the former, and the other to the latter. The critique of management science begins by noting both the univtrsalism and the empiricism which are to be found in many works on organizational theory and organizational control topics which Whitley sees as the central concerns of most writers on management. The characteristic of universalism is indicated by the fact that existing organizations are taken as given and are treated as eternal, ahistorical entities, whilst empiricism manifests itself in the rather arbitrary way management studies are categorized. Such categorizations seem to have no coherent ordering principles.., 33 and so Whitley therefore produces his own: Current approaches to management research may, then, be classified according to how relations between society, formal organizations and the individual are understood. 34 On this basis three major approaches are distinguished according to whether society, the organization or the individual are taken as the starting point for analysis, with other levels being reducible, or secondary, to the one chosen. Cybernetic and other systems theorists are placed in the first category, radical psychological individualists in the third, and the bulk of organizational theory in the second. Whitley then proceeds to an exposition and critique of the most prominent theories of management and organization. Many of the criticisms of these theories are perfectly valid, although in general they are not original. For instance radical psychological individualists, such as Herzberg and Argyris, are rightly criticized for ignoring the reality of structure and, hence, the structural basis of conflict. Systems theorists are accused of being overly abstract, sometimes to the point of vacuity, and of treating the biological notion of a system as though it were a theoretical concept when, in fact, it is merely an analogy, or model. And organization theorists are taken to task for failing to display any historical understanding of organizations and of the ways in which they change over time according to changes in the wider society. Indeed Whitley s first paper is marred by a rather excessive predilection for throwing any and every criticism at management science. This plethora of criticism necessarily entails a variety of critical standpoints and it is therefore not altogether surprising that no coherent alternative management science emerges from the paper. This is reflected in the fact that although the title of the paper refers to the study of forms of cooperation in changing socio-economic structures, no further reference is made to these socio-economic structures except by way of general remarks to the effect that they have been ignored. However, overriding all these criticisms is the view that existing approaches to management research both take existing organizations as given and treat objectives as specifiable, consensual and historically indeterminate. Whitley writes:

13 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page 77 Wood and Kelly Towards a Critical Management Science 77 In almost all discussions of management research existing structures are assumed as basic data and their imputed or stated objectives are accepted. In other words not only do current forms of organization serve as the starting point for analysis, they also serve as the reference point for concluding analysis. The emphasis is very much on improving existing structures in the light of changing conditions. 35 A broadening of approach to the study of forms of organization thus involves, Whitley tells us, a historical understanding of how forms of organizations have emerged, flourished and decayed in different socio-economic structures and some discussion of values and objectives which is not rooted in time and culture-specific circumstances. 36 Currently, then, management research at least in western capitalism must analyse how particular types of coordinated work activities have arisen within the capitalist system, what are the inherent dynamics of these types and how do these dynamics relate to the developments of capitalism. 37 It will begin with the current forms of organization, but, unlike existing approaches, not end with them: It is essential to understand how existing forms developed if we are to see how future forms will occur and how they may be modified. 38 Conventional management researchers either totally ignore society, or they regard it as a product of large scale organization and extrapolate current trends without attempting to model underlying processes. The virtue of Marxism, according to Whitley, is that it does not do this; Marx practised a form of science which was predicated on the belief that real structures underlay common sense reality and these structures could be comprehended by man and so controlled by him. 39 Thus Whitley concludes that even if one does not view Marx s work as definitive and exemplary it must be taken seriously, at least as a starting point, for it provides one model of development for a substantive management science predicated on the belief that man can understand his situation and improve it. 40 Whitley argues that it is this belief which distinguishes management research, although he does recognize that it could be argued that all social science is orientated towards the aim of developing a better society in terms of rationally discussed values. Whitley s management research implies that not only are existing concepts of organization to be taken as problematic, but that existing dominant values are to be seen not only as social facts, hence scientifically problematic, but also as questionable in their own terms. 41 This implies at least a rejection of the irrationalist view of values which dominates social science and especially the attempt to achieve a value-free study, if not a rejection of the fact-value distinction. Indeed, Whitley goes so far as to assert, unfortunately with no detailed discussion as to its precise meaning and significance, that a science of management without discussing the problem of ultimate values and their role in understanding and practice is impossible. 42 Unless we know what precisely is entailed in such a discussion it is difficult to evaluate this

14 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page Critical Management Studies assertion and its consequences; furthermore, it is not easy to see how Whitley avoids retreating into idealism. A management science which, either by decision or default, does not accept the values and goals of the dominant culture need not deny that values are historically determinate and, hence, the impossibility of ultimate goals and values. There cannot be a discussion of values and objectives which is not rooted in time and culture as Whitley implies there could be, at least if his words are taken literally for the terms of any rational discussion will inevitably be historically and culturally determined regardless of whether they reflect the dominant culture. Given the lack of clarification in Whitley s articulation of his proposed strategy for research in management in his first paper, his second paper is thus of special interest. Unfortunately, he does not follow up all the points he raises in his first paper and, in particular, he does not enlarge on the problem of ultimate values. It certainly cannot be taken to represent a straight follow-up of his previous paper. In the second paper theories are now classified according to the way in which they treat the problem of order in organizations and, specifically, to their explanation of the source of disorder. The first group see disorder as the result of human irrationality which is itself inexplicable; the second treats disorder as a function of opposed personal goals, to be resolved by the exercise of power; whilst the third group consists of those theorists who, although they acknowledge the existence of conflicting goals, nevertheless argue that organizations are bound together by a consensus of fundamental values. Within general sociology each of these views of order and disorder has been subjected to considerable criticism and much of it is used by Whitley against management theorists. The same features which were found to characterize management theories in the first paper apply with equal strength to the theories reviewed in the second paper. Many contain universalist views of human nature, ahistorical treatments of organizations, and/or managerialist views of organizational problems. But the crux of their failings is that certain phenomena, whether they be interpersonal conflict, environmental disorder, or human irrationality, are taken as given, as unamenable to rational explanation. Whitley however argues that this tendency is inimical to the development of a science of management and, in the second half of this paper, he lays down the basis for an alternative management science. This alternative draws heavily on the work of Althusser and Poulantzas 43 and has three basic components. Firstly, it stresses the relationship between organizations and the wider society; secondly, it treats organizations, principally capitalist industrial organizations, in terms of their fundamental purpose, the accumulation of capital via the extraction of surplus value; and thirdly, it suggests that organizational behaviour can only be understood in terms of the interaction of dominant and subordinate collectivities, where the former seeks to legitimate its rule through the institutionalization of ideology. The perspective is summarized by Whitley as follows:

15 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page 79 Wood and Kelly Towards a Critical Management Science 79 The comparative study of organizational control or organizational development, then, is the study of how macro-structural processes and power relations are manifested and how such modes of manifestation themselves condition further developments. 44 He later writes that, organizations (may) be viewed as modes of institutionalizing patterns of subordination in a system of power relations derived from a context of macro-structural processes This perspective serves to draw our attention to the fact that organizations do not operate in a vacuum and, also, to the fact that they are systems based on domination and not free consent. It also points to the purpose of capitalist industrial organizations. But unfortunately Whitley s work contains many shortcomings. To begin with it is marked by a degree of abstraction peculiar to much Althusserian writing and, although this in itself is not objectionable, the point about Althusserian abstractions is that they do not take us very far. Further, and more seriously, they appear incapable, even in principle, of yielding fresh insights into the questions under consideration. There is little interest in being told that organizations must be seen in the context of macrostructural processes unless these processes are at least identified, if not discussed. Whitley s references to these processes are not accompanied by such identification, and this lacuna lends weight to the accusation of reification that one could reasonably level at his work. The second shortcoming concerns the relationship between the economic and the political functions of organizations. Although Whitley acknowledges the centrality of surplus value production in capitalist organizations, this acknowledgement is in fact largely formal, as it is not explored. For he then proceeds to treat organizations in terms of their political characteristics only, that is in terms of power and authority. Instead of seeing the political activities of organizations as subservient to their economic ends, and discussing the relations between them, Whitley appears to treat political activities as an object of study in their own right. Indeed to the extent that he pays no significant attention to the capitalist production process (except when treating it as a premise from which to derive further arguments) we can say that Whitley has failed to break from a purely sociological perspective. Since Whitley does not follow up many of his ideas (for example, the importance of profit in capitalism is mentioned but then dropped) and often uses ill-defined, obscure and vague terminology, it is difficult to know what it would mean to follow his example. An overall evaluation of Whitley s work must await further contributions, and thus it is to be hoped that further explications and development of his ideas will be forthcoming. It is also to be hoped that his two papers are not dismissed as Mills said of Parsons as confused verbiage. 46 For Whitley does point to the importance of values,

16 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page Critical Management Studies history, and non-reductionism, amongst other things, for a critical management theory. He goes beyond Hales whose work he recognizes, but does not criticize in that he argues for the treatment of developments within capitalist organizations as problematic. Unlike Hales, who simply counter-poses caitalpist and non-capitalist organizations according to the criterion of praxis, and thus by implication treats capitalist organizations as static and forming a homogeneous category, Whitley recognizes the dynamic nature of organizations, albeit in a somewhat formal manner. As it stands, though, it is difficult not to conclude that his work contains a number of paradoxes. Compare, for example, his plea for historical analysis with his formalism; or his recognition of the economic character of organizations and his anti-reductionism with his emphasis on the political level. These and other problems of Whitley s work may have been overcome had he considered the location of the management scientist in society and not simply focused on what he terms the intellectual structures of management research. 47 As it is, it is difficult then not to conclude that Whitley has divested management research of its practical dimension, despite his obvious concern for improvements. For he ends up giving primacy to the development of a set of categories for describing organizations and their modes of development. Alternatively, it is difficult not to feel that the reader may be left with the impression that the management scientist, according to Whitley, is somehow above society and/or should be involved in, or be stimulating, a rational debate about values. There is nothing in what Whitley says to imply that, because of the irreconcilable conflict between capital and labour in capitalism, such a rational debate about the values (according to which we wish to judge and improve organizations) cannot involve all simultaneously. Concluding Remarks The overall purpose of this paper has not been simply one of destructive criticism. We have attempted to describe and critically evaluate several recent radical writers on management. From this we may argue, amongst other things, that their work lacks any clear method, that is any notion of the precise links between theory, concrete reality and practical intentions. There has been little self-conscious reflection on what precisely the more critical management studies are aiming to achieve, and how it might be achieved and for whom it is working. Our discussion thus serves to raise several important questions. Can you have a radical management science? Is it not a contradiction in terms? If not, what would it look like? Part of the problems inherent in answering these questions arise from the obvious fact that radical is a term which applies to relative positions and can easily be used in a vague and misleading way and, certainly, is a highly problematic concept. Thus, for example, Taylorism is radical in so far as it is a manifestation of the progressive

17 chap5.qxp 12/12/2010 1:25 PM Page 81 Wood and Kelly Towards a Critical Management Science 81 nature of capitalism, whilst Taylor was certainly radical in his times. At present the term radical can be applied to many different things ranging from simply approaches which locate organizations within the wider society to a fully fledged Marxist approach. Perhaps the common thrust in the radical movement is a concern not to treat the existing patterns of inequality of wealth, status, power and authority as given, coupled with an attack on current management thinking for being a form of legitimation and support of the status quo. An important aspect of the work which we have discussed is its implicit acceptance of the study of forms of organization and management as a legitimate and significant activity. It thus serves, amongst other things, to defend such enquiry against those who argue that to concentrate on management systems is to support their very existence. There are, however, differences between the various writers we have discussed. Churchman s emphasis is more on the role of the management scientist and less on the cognitive structure of what they produce. It is interesting to note that as discussion becomes more focused on the latter, as is exemplified by Whitley s work, less attention is paid to how one might achieve a debate about values, and how theory relates to practical movements. This is not to say that Churchman satisfactorily deals with such issues. He appears to end up with a form of idealism and fails to locate the management scientist in society. Also, as we have seen, despite a recognition of the importance of history and the material base of society, both Hales and Whitley appear reluctant to face up to the fact that the management scientist s behaviour and values must inevitably be culturally and historically grounded. He cannot be above society, but rather his attempt to improve organizations is mediated through his membership of particular groups and communities, as well as through his concepts and language. The question of a radical management science, as Churchman to some extent recognizes, thus involves the problem of its organization, and how it relates to the activities which constitute its field of study. Unless this is confronted there is the danger that we simply replace moral condemnation with an amoral, highly scholastic, body of thought consisting of little more than a set of abstract concepts or, alternatively, with more sophisticated understandings of existing management thought which do no more than reinforce the tendency to dismiss it. The various attempts to radicalize management and organizational studies are distinguishable above all else by their approaches. In a sense they all attempt to go beyond simple moral condemnation; that is, they have not simply assumed management systems are manipulative and, hence, that social scientists involved in activity directed towards changing or improving them are inherently the servants of power. The recent discussions of management science have thus focused on it as a body of knowledge (of one form or another) and not specifically on its creator and diffuser, the management scientist or bureaucratic social engineer. Churchman and Hales thus agree that it is not so much that management science is aimed at