implies changing our power vision from something external to something internal (inside all of us) a
major contribution by Michel Foucault. More about that below.
A little bit more practical
CMS are usually charged of being abstract and theoretical (quite rightly), so let’s try to “land” some
important issues, using a real case: a few months ago when we organized a round table to introduce
the topic, a woman in the public sent us an email questioning its usefulness (we honestly thank for
her interest!) that we are going to summarize in order to better understand what CMS proposals are
about. Her main reasoning was:
1. General charges to “the system” are useless because of lack of accountability (whose fault? answer:
the system), and generates a discourse that leaves the subject as a victim and it is a dead end. Unless
you decide to take up arms to implement a new system (what system?) or arrange an atomic bombing
and end the current “system”, hoping that cockroaches take over overnight.
2. Until recently, workers complained of being alienated; in the 80s with the commitment boom, you
now say they feel exploited … why?, why if it happens to be voluntary & desired engagement?. Theories
are converging to the idea that if employees win, company wins. Is that what CMS nd so annoying?.
3. Finally, what do you propose?, any model, any clue, any ideas other than the absolute demonization
of work in the best tradition of biblical expulsion from paradise? Work provides a sense of contribution
to society, money, social status, personal accomplishment (though not always), learning, social
relationships … and countless blessings current unemployed could list, apart from enabling the
necessary supermarket visits.
This is an elaborated excerpt of our response:
While CMS can be used for many things (and there are many conicts within CMS, a framework far
from having a monolithic view), CMS promote alternative views of organizations that can enable
more innovative action. Using Gareth Morgan’s Images of Organization, if we can use several
metaphors to look at organizations: e.g. brains, machines, ux and transformation, as political
systems, as cultures, as psychic prisons, as system of dominations, as organisms (we could safely
agree that more views/metaphors are possible), maybe the key point is that we tend to think using
one/few metaphors ONLY. This frames our vision in specic ways, “enabling but also limiting us”
since some metaphors are rarely used: i.e. organizations as political systems, as psychic prisons, as
domination systems.
So CMS’ vision about mainstream Management is that it underplays visions linked with politics (and
ethical dilemmas) inside organizations. Mainstream Management usually is limited to nding the one
best way or best practices to manage people.. etc.. When mainstream tend to argue that WIN-WIN
between organization/workers is perfectly possible, CMS state that things tend to be a little bit
more complicated than a WIN-WIN scenario and that real organizations are packed with people
being subordinated by short term objectives (not really questioned) where human side is far from
central.
From a theoretical point of view, CMS argue that there are no neutral spaces and that any social
relationship (of course also the manager-employee relationship) needs to incorporate politics
(interests, attempts to inuence, etc. , conscious or not …) if it wants to account for real life. CMS
tries to make that explicit and visible!. Politics/Power are not necessarily bad (in fact they are
unavoidable) and we need to change our views about social relationships. We need a better
Utilizamos cookies para asegurar que damos la mejor experiencia al usuario en nuestro sitio web. Si continúa utilizando
este sitio asumiremos que está de acuerdo.
Estoy de acuerdo
Estoy de acuerdo Más información
Más información