Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore power-resistance plays, or organisational change politics, from

a discourse theory perspective to deepen our understanding of the political and emotional dimensions of these

phenomena.

Design/methodology: The paper deploys Laclauian concepts of hegemony, fantasmatic narrative, empty

signifiers alongside a recently-developed logics of critical explanation approach in the case study of an English

local authority formulating a project of integrated commissioning in response to austerity.

Findings: The paper demonstrates how organisational change politics are played out in multiple ways, from

social and political negotiations over the meaning of commissioning to the refuelling of the authority’s

fantasmatic narrative.

Originality: The paper’s key value is to illustrate how and why discourse theory can contribute, alongside other

discursive frameworks, to the in-depth qualitative and political study of organisational issues such as change.

Keywords: organisational politics, organisational change, local government, discourse, logics.

Paper type: Research paper

Introduction

The study of power and resistance plays in organisational change (OC) politics, has greatly evolved over the last

decade, the critical management literature notably analysing the multiplicity of resistance, its precariousness,

and bridging what remained a ‘power versus resistance’ divide (Ackroyd & Thompson 1999; Fleming & Spicer

2003). Yet, discourse theory figures little in such research, studies preferring Foucauldian or critical realist

approaches to discourse (Kwon et al. 2014; Thomas & Davies 2005). Rather than this being linked to the

inadequacies of discourse theory, I argue that there is space for an exploration of discursive concepts such as

hegemony, empty signifier and a logics method, to produce in-depth critical findings.

Articulating discourse theory1 (Laclau & Mouffe 1985), this article investigates three aspects of current critical

research. First, regarding the popular question of emotions and identity construction in OC politics (Gagnon &

Collinson 2014; Thomas & Hardy 2011), I argue that already-deployed concepts such as the multiple subject

positions of individuals and the fluidity of power could be complimented with discursive concepts of

fantasmatic narrative and grip (Glynos & Howarth 2007; Griggs & Howarth 2013). Second, regarding the

complexity of OC politics, with studies already highlighting the multiple workings of hegemonic discourses

(Parker & Dent 1996; Thomas et al. 2011), I propose to review how discursive concepts such as hegemony,

demands, equivalence/difference, and empty signifier, can help further examine the intricacies of power plays.

Third, based on the discursive studies reviewed, I argue that they often adopt a macro-approach, deploying pre-

1 Discourse theory is a contested field with many different approaches (MacKillop 2014, pp.13–18 for a lengthier discussion).

determined frameworks or hierarchies, where change and its politics is the result of bigger phenomena such as

neoliberalism or managerialism (Bridgman 2007; Contu et al. 2013). In reference to the growing number of

studies adopting a micro-approach with rich single case studies (Kwon et al. 2014; Weick 1998), I put forward a

logics of critical explanation approach (Glynos & Howarth 2007), which problematises a given organisation,

exploring the history of its struggles and developing situated questions and critiques.

The paper makes three contributions to the literature; first, by emphasising how the grip but also fragility of OC

discourses may be further grasped via the concept of fantasmatic narratives (Griggs & Howarth 2013); second,

by adding to studies documenting the complexity and precariousness of power plays in organisations by

mobilising concepts of hegemony, demand, empty and floating signifier (Laclau 1996). Third, via its logics

design, the paper develops a situated problematisation of OC politics, allowing a nuanced explanation and

critique of such politics.

To investigate these OC politics, a particular case study was selected, that of an English County Council,

anonymised as ‘Internshire County Council’, and its Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), ‘Internshire Together’.

The case focuses on the formulation of an organisational and service delivery reform, ‘Integrated

Commissioning 2012’ (IC 2012), responding to the Government’s post-2010 austerity agenda (HM Treasury

2010). Building on 33 interviews with key players, a documentary archive spanning four decades and nine

months of participant observations, this case study analyses the political and emotional dimensions of OC

politics. Although some ‘overt’ resistances were observed (e.g. some partners leaving the negotiation), most

conflicts were more complex, materialising in the definition and practices associated with key signifiers of

‘commissioning’, or subject positions of ‘commissioners’. Thus OC politics were fluid and constitutive of each

other, requiring constant renegotiation of the governing rules, or ‘logics’, of this organisation.

The paper is organised as follows. First, a review of the OC politics literature mobilising discourse theory is

undertaken. Three limitations are highlighted, namely the limited understanding of hegemony, the exploration of

the affective aspect of OC politics, and the macro tendencies of these studies. This leads to three proposals being

drawn from discourse theory. Second, the logics design and data collection methods are explained. Third,

Internshire’s change project, IC 2012, is analysed, focusing on three instances demonstrating the critical

potential of discursive concepts for the study of OC politics. The paper finally discusses findings and wider

contributions to the field.

1. Developing critical studies of organisational change politics with discourse theory

Whilst the mainstream organisational change (OC) literature remains performative in its goals (Jas 2013; Kanter

et al. 1992; Van de Ven & Poole 1995), the critical strand has demonstrated the conflicts constituting OC

politics, acknowledging and deconstructing power and conflict in organisations, notably via the mobilisation of

poststructuralist concepts of discourse and hegemony. For instance, ‘taken-for-granted’ assumptions in

organisations such as change as progress or resistance as barrier have been debunked (Grey & Willmott 2005).

Researchers have exposed how OC is complex (Bridgman & Willmott 2006), implying the manufacturing of

consent (Spicer et al. 2009). They have also analysed how OC politics play out within the individual (Barge &

Oliver 2003; Thomas & Hardy 2011)b, deploying concepts of subject positions, emotion, and lack (see

paragraph on second limitation for definitions).

Despite this dynamism of OC politics research, those studies building on discourse theory, and in particular

Laclauian discourse theory, have been simultaneously few and, it is here argued, limited in their mobilisation of

this theoretical background. Here, three limitations of the current discursive OC politics literature are discussed.

The first limitation concerns the discursive literature’s understanding of the concept of hegemony. For instance,

this conflictual aspect of change was articulated in Contu et al.’s study of multinational plant closures in France,

where resistance was conceptualised as “local responses” to head office decisions (2013, p.382). Despite

discussing Gramsci’s understanding of hegemony as “never accomplished completely” and always implying a

“constant struggle […] played in a delicate web of relations of forces” (2013: pp. 366), Contu et al. construct

OC politics in their case studies as a struggle between two camps. These authors also concentrate on collective

resistance rather than documenting the identification dilemmas encountered by specific individuals (2013: pp.

367). Hence, the potential practices and identities of those identifying neither with senior management nor with

worker identities is here lacking. Gathering more detail on each case would allow to better explain hegemonic

articulations, or strategies, and discuss alternatives and local constructions of this discourse. Spicer and Sewell

(2010) also limit their understanding of contingency and conflict to particular periods. They argue that

“contradictions […] can be a constant feature of an organization that act as the focus of ongoing and ritualized

political struggles” (ibid.: pp. 920) (emphasis added). In fact, for Laclau and Mouffe (1985), this ‘opportunity’

is always present, because of the contingency and inherent lack of discursive structures and individuals. I frame

power and resistance in and around OC as constitutive of each other, following Laclau’s discussion of the

simultaneous domination and precariousness of power as hegemony (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). For Ezzamel et

al. (2001) and Van Bommel and Spicer (2011), organisational change processes are power struggles, played out

in discourses articulating meaning to build a collective identity and “forging hegemonic links among a range of

disparate actors” (2011, p. 1717; 1721). As argued by Fleming and Spicer (2008) and Thomas et al. (2011),

power and resistance constitute and negate each other. They are “effectively caught in a deadly mutual embrace”

(Žižek, cited in Contu 2008, p.365). Each reproduction of a hegemonic OC discourse is in effect a re-

interpretation and therefore a subversion threatening that power. Conceptualising power as hegemony refocuses

attention on the conflict over meaning, inherent to OC questions (Thomas & Davies 2005). Hegemony and the

complex constitution of meaning as applied to OC politics helps explore how and why post-2010 reforms

emerged across English local government and how and why concepts such as partnership, commissioning, or

efficiency were renegotiated. The present paper also deploys the concept of empty signifier to examine this

complexity and fragility of OC politics. These are particular demands which have been ‘tendentially’ emptied of

meaning to represent an impossible totality – to cover over radical contingency (i.e. the fact that discourses can

never signify everything) and naturalise unequal relations within an organisation. This concept has been applied

by other critical studies of change (Jones & Spicer 2005) and the present study builds on these findings to

continue exploring the complexities of OC power plays. For instance, Essers et al. explain how “it almost does

not matter what signifiers are being utilized by the leaders of states, companies or other organizations, as long as

they are ‘empty’ enough, so that a large crowd of (often contradictory) identities can find a ‘home’ in them”

(2009, p.137). By entering the empirical field without pre-given notions of what is an empty signifier in a case

of change – e.g. is ‘quality’ an empty signifier? – the study adds to growing calls for situated research (cf. third

contribution). Howarth, with Glynos (2007) and Griggs (Howarth & Griggs 2006), develops five conditions for

the emergence of empty signifiers based on their methodological and empirical studies. Among these, a

particular element of meaning must be available and credible. This implies questioning whether this signifier is

able to signify and interpellate a broad array of demands. To illustrate, change projects will aim to signify

something abstract and ambiguous such as a ‘better future’ or a ‘streamlined organisation’ to ‘grip’

organisational players. Furthermore, an unequal division of power is needed for empty signifiers to

accommodate multiple demands, this resulting from past hegemonic struggles. A historical and empirical

documentation of why and how a particular empty signifier emerged is necessary. Finally, the concept of

demands adds to this exploration of power-resistance. Demands are at first grievances (Laclau 2006). For

instance, an individual in an organisation may have a grievance relating to her/his lack of participation in the

decision-making process or their professional title. Grievances are constitutive of any society, since individuals

are inherently lacking, seeking to realise a full identity (e.g. happiness) which discourse theory deems ultimately

impossible. Different individuals may advance different grievances across an organisation, relating for example

to a lack of control, a desire for more training, or increased collaboration between services. These disparate

grievances become demands when articulated together by discourses into a chain of equivalence. Within this

chain, each demand is framed as equivalent or similar to other demands part of the same chain (logic of

difference) (Laclau & Mouffe 1985). Demands for better pay, greater decision-making power and independence

may become linked together by a project/discourse as united against some common enemy such as the ‘lazy

bureaucrat’, a competing organisation, or the Government (logic of equivalence) (Laclau, 2006). According to

Laclau, this drawing of equivalences makes it “far more difficult to determine which is the instance to which the

claims are addressed” (Laclau, 2006, p. 655). I argue that by characterising the logics at play in an organisation,

their articulation and renegotiation by different discourses will be exposed and allow critique.

A second limitation of the discursive literature regards how the emotional dimension of OC politics is

conceptualised. This emotional appeal of OC discourses is explored by articulating concepts of subject position,

grip, and fantasmatic narrative (Griggs & Howarth 2013). This affective aspect has been investigated by critical

studies (Glynos 2008; Jones & Spicer 2005), notably linked to the growing popularity of Lacanian psychology

in organisation studies (Contu et al. 2010; Stavrakakis 2008). For instance, Barge and Oliver (2003) mobilise

organisational psychology to examine the inner-conflicts experienced by middle-managers leading change

projects. In another study involving middle managers, Thomas and Linstead (2002) analyse how these latter are

often both resisting and supporting change at the same time (also Harding 2005). However, whereas these

literatures, building more directly on Foucault or critical realism, have mobilised concepts such as subject

positions, values, or culture to analyse and critique this emotional aspect, those studies mobilising discourse

theory, and notably concepts of ideology, its understanding of the individual as subject position, or empty

signifiers, have tended to reduce the potential of these tools. Some studies have articulated Lacanian

psychoanalysis to analyse how individuals are ‘gripped’ or interpellated by OC discourses. In general, those

reviewed still tended to over-emphasise the role of individuals as agents in constituting change (Glynos 2008;

Jones & Spicer 2005). What I propose here is to add to studies with discourse theory concepts such as

fantasmatic narratives, subjectivity, empty and floating signifiers. Among those mobilising discourse theory,

Spicer and Sewell for instance discuss this fantasmatic aspect through the concept of “organizational logics”

(2010, p.914), where these latter are defined as “organizationally specific manifestations of socially embedded

ideologies, myths, and beliefs”. Like Contu et al. (2013) and van Bommel and Spicer (2011), all these studies

seek examining how consent is gathered. Although growing number of studies has been calling for an

exploration of how OC occasions complex identity work (Collinson 2003), the concept of fantasmatic narrative,

helping to explain further the emotional dimension of discourses, has not been used before. For discourse

theory, the constitution of the individual is understood in two ways: as interpellated by subject positions, and as

capable of acts of identification, i.e. as actors (Laclau 1996). Individuals are understood as inherently ‘lacking’,

their identity always being dislocated/disturbed, yet always seeking a ‘fuller’ self (Stavrakakis 2008). For

instance, Thomas and Davies explain how individual resistance is “stimulated by the contradictions, weaknesses

and gaps between alternative subject positions” (2005, p.687). In addressing these resistances and threats from

other discourses, OC discourses appeal to the individual’s fears and desires, for instance “arising from the desire

to gain security and comfort” (ibid.). In understanding this process, this paper mobilises the concept of

fantasmatic narrative (Griggs & Howarth 2013). These are ideological constructions articulating together

disparate individual fears – e.g. a failing local authority being taken over by Government, an organisation losing

out to competitors – and desires – e.g. a dream of an excellent organisation, with all its services collaborating

together – around a selected few demands. This concept could help examine the complex grip of OC discourses,

exposing the ideological and psychological dimensions of change politics, explaining the ‘unexplainable’ such

as why individuals in organisations ‘believe’ in reforms outlining unrealistic goals such as more quality with

less resources.

A third limitation with the discursive OC politics literature is its tendency to analyse particular cases based on

macro-explanations of change where OC in a given organisation tends to be explained as a result of bigger

phenomena. For instance, complex local demands were sometimes subsumed within ‘big’ discourse considered

to be hegemonising the world, such as neo-liberalism, downsizing or post-welfarism (Contu et al. 2013; Rhodes

et al. 2009). These constructions are however detrimental for understanding resistance and power in

organisations in all their complexity and originality, and how ‘bigger’ phenomena like austerity are mobilised

locally. This approach is problematic because it risks reducing rich data to pre-determined explanations. Weick

(1998) and Tsoukas and Chia (2002) have stressed the importance of micro-processes of change, highlighting

fluidity, action and subjectivity in OC. Kwon et al. (2014) have for instance demonstrated how methods such as

Critical Discourse Analysis allow in-depth explorations of micro-discursive strategies deployed in cases of OC

politics. The present research continues that quest by mobilising logics of critical explanation which proposes

five steps emphasising “different dimensions of social reality” (Glynos & Howarth 2007, p.14) and thus

different dimensions of OC politics. Different types of ‘rules’ govern a given system of meaning, such as higher

education (ibid.) or airport expansion (Griggs & Howarth 2013). This approach does not solely concentrate on

‘talk and text’ but explores the norms, actions, identities and other discursive practices articulated by competing

projects in organising a given context such as an organisation. A first step of this approach problematises the

phenomenon under study. This implies a longitudinal approach to explore the ‘ignoble origins’ of OC discourse,

examining how consent is forged over time and interrogating the “reproduction and transformation of

hegemonic orders and practices” (Howarth 2000, pp.72–73). A second step of a logics approach renders the

problematised phenomenon more intelligible, what Glynos and Howarth term “retroductive explanation” (2007,

p.19), requiring a constant iteration between theory and empirical data (also Angouri & Glynos 2009). Thirdly,

three types of logics are indispensable in helping us to explain, criticise and evaluate problematised phenomena

(Howarth 2008). Contextualising interviews with social, political and fantasmatic logics allows investigating

how a given reform project and particular OC practices emerged, mobilised consent and became slowly

embedded or failed. Social logics interrogate how demands become established as rules and norms such as what

change, efficiency or commissioning ‘is’ in a given case. Political logics allow characterising how demands are

brought in or excluded by dominant organisational discourses, reproducing Laclau and Mouffe’s logics of

equivalence and difference (already discussed supra). Finally, fantasmatic logics identify the emotive or

affective dimension of OC discourses, examining how demands, and particularly individuals’ identities, become

‘gripped’ by particular reforms. The fourth step of a logics approach involves articulation, a fundamental

methodological ‘tool’ where theoretical concepts and objects of study are modified by the researcher in

achieving the best possible explanation of the case. Fifthly, by making visible the moments of contestation,

domination and excluded possibilities (i.e. the political and fantasmatic dimensions of social reality), this

analytical framework opens up the space for a situated critique of organisation and change practices,

highlighting in this particular case the lack of equality and participation of most organisational partners.

Based on these three key limitations of the discursive OC literature, this paper has proposed new avenues for the

development of discourse theory in this field. Before findings from the case study can be discussed, I present the

paper’s research methods, and particularly the key challenges of articulating discourse theory to a case of OC.

Research methods

In this section, I explain how discourse theory is operationalised for the study of organisational change (OC)

politics. Following discourse theory’s principles of non-determinism and the constant flow of meaning - or

articulation -, I sought mixed research methods which would allow me to constantly reflect on the data collected

and their meaning in relation to my research question. To contextualise this paper, it is necessary to stress the

paramount role of the discursive researcher as a reflective subject, constantly questioning her theoretical tools

vis-à-vis the data collected and developing exemplary knowledge based on reasoning (Flyvbjerg 2006). Here, I

concentrate on four aspects of these methods.

First, I aimed documenting not only the talks and texts constituting OC politics but also those other discursive

practices which play a role in the constitution of these politics, be there gestures - e.g. a rictus when the new

reform is mentioned in meetings -, or historical myths (known here as fantasmatic logics) and ‘rules’ (known

here as social logics). For instance, why was it considered an accepted ‘fact’ that the Chief Executive’s

Department (CED) formulated reforms, leaving other players as passive? In doing so, I collected three types of

data. 33 semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2011-May 2013, averaging fourty-five

minutes in length. Between September 2011 and April 2012, participant observations were compiled into field

notes and a diary of ongoing reflections. Documents spanning four decades of OC (1974-2013) in Internshire

were systematically compiled into an archive. Data collection was facilitated by the fact that this corporate

centre wished for a researcher to document its latest project.

Second, when adopting a discourse theory approach, the researcher will aim documenting and characterising

numerous discursive practices, from the dominant/hegemonic discourses, to those framed by the dominant

discourse(s) as ‘other’ or threats. This required interviewing OC players, focusing on past and present

discourses and conflicts over OC in Internshire. Initial data collection led to focus on managers in the CED and

their practices. It was ‘hypothesised’ that this locality had been hegemonised by a corporate management regime

of practices, where the CED played a key role in framing ‘problems’ and proposing corporate and performance

management ‘solutions’ which sought normalising, excluding and covering over the control of this centre.

Consequently, out of 33 interviews, 11 were conducted with corporate managers central to the formulation and

implementation of IC 2012. Ten interviews were conducted with other managers, directors or senior officers

from the County and other partners. Five out of seven District Chief Executives were interviewed to understand

their support and opposition to change. Seven leading politicians, especially lead-members in County and

District Councils, were also interviewed to understand how their demands were mobilised and, in this case,

hegemonised by this corporate management discourse. I asked participants why they supported or rejected the

project, problematising the conflictual linking of demands at play in Internshire. Finally, by comparing these

responses, it transpired that supporters and opponents advanced similar explanations, building on similar

demands or conditions – e.g. efficiency, austerity, partnership –, articulated in contrasting ways, emphasising

conflicts over meaning and the blurriness of power-resistance. This diversity helped explore the hegemonic

strategies at play and the building of equivalences and differences during the project. Interviews were fully

transcribed and coded (see infra). This allowed then characterising a dominant, corporate management,

discourse of OC in Internshire and competing political projects, helping to analyse OC politics.

Interview questions explored struggles constituting OC in Internshire in two ways. First, interviews were

conducted based on some preliminary interview themes, questioning their strategies and tactics, and

interrogating what motivated and scared them (characterising fantasmatic logics), what appeared ‘normal’

(social logics) as well as what appeared conflictual or unequal/unfair (political logics). Second, interviewees

were invited to explain why they thought IC 2012 emerged and what guided the corporate centre. For instance,

participants were asked to explain their own decisions or actions and those of other groups, gathering different

interpretations of OC practices (Glynos & Howarth 2007). Especially, explanations surrounding the ‘definition’

of commissioning yielded rich data which led me to characterise the floating and empty mobilisations of this

key signifier in the corporate management discourse. Besides, when events were mentioned by some

interviewees, other participants would be asked to comment, exposing how identical events were described in

different ways, highlighting past struggles but also the contradictory articulation of meaning and its consequence

for exercising power. This explanatory exercise stressed the conflictual character of OC. Furthermore, it was felt

that anonymising the organisation and participants would not only protect their identity but also allow yielding

rich data.

Third, I sought understanding the constitution of OC across time in Internshire, for which a documentary

archive was constituted. Different documentary genres helped characterise the normalising (social logics),

transforming/contesting (political logics) and ideological (fantasmatic logics) dimensions of change discourses

in Internshire (Fairclough 1995; also cf. MacKillop 2014). Documents formulated by the corporate centre (e.g.

training strategies, minutes of corporate meetings) had been central to OC for four decades, making them crucial

data, alongside other documents formulated by the County Council and the partnership. 627 documents were

collected, alongside the consultation of other documents. Documents compiled were selected on the basis of: (1)

their relevance to understanding the taken-for-granted or ‘official’ discourse of organisational change in this

locality – e.g. were OC projects formulated in the same way across time? Which threats and hopes were

mobilised? Who were the players involved?; and (2) their relevance to resistance to change and its

representation in corporate documents as well as minutes of the County Council and LSP – e.g. were those

resisting change framed as ‘enemies’ or simply ‘alternatives’ that could be accommodated by the reform?

Fourth, data analysis, especially from a logics approach, involves constant interrogation, each source potentially

articulating different meanings and endeavouring different purposes such as excluding demands or covering

over one group’s control. Furthermore, a source does not ‘transparently’ exhibit a logic, leaving it instead to the

researcher to articulate and explain the underlying logics of change in Internshire (the same process applies for

the characterisation of empty signifiers). A critical analytical framework was sought (Jupp & Norris 1993),

highlighting conflict, power, and ideology. To synthesise, the process of data analysis is here divided into two

interlinked steps (in reality this process was more iterative). First, interviews, documents and observations were

coded, based on eight broad interview themes, first manually, and then with NVivo 9 to categorise the data. This

helped systematically draw similarities and differences among that vast array of data, embodying discourse

theory’s understanding of organisations and change as constituted by the linking of demands into chains of

equivalences according to logics of equivalence and difference. Second, the data were organised according to

four problematisations (first step of a logics approach), formulated to interrogate and critically explain

organisational change and its success/failure in Internshire (cf. Figure 1 below).

Figure 1 here: Four problematisations of organisational change in Internshire

Organisational change in Internshire County Council: findings from a discursive and logics approach

Internshire County Council (or ICC) is an upper-tier and semi-rural English local authority, divided into seven

District Councils, collaborating with each other, as well as nineteen other local organisations (public, private

and voluntary), via the medium of its local strategic partnership (LSP). In 2010, this locality formulated a new

reform, Integrated Commissioning 2012 (IC 2012).

Internshire was hegemonised from the 1970s by a corporate management regime of practices, spearheaded by

corporate managers and later the Chief Executive’s Department. Disparate demands across Internshire were

‘gripped’ together by the ‘apolitical’ character of corporate management and the fear of political instability,

Internshire witnessing a two-decade long period of no overall control. Furthermore, Internshire was recognised

as ‘excellent’ under New Labour’s performance regime, being awarded ‘four stars’ by the Audit Commission.

This fantasmatic narrative of performance and excellence was constantly refuelled, Government reforms,

lagging performance or awards all legitimising more corporate management. This hegemonisation did not

however take place without conflict. Grievances from councillors, Districts, other partners and even County

officers demanded more participation and equality. These were however successively hegemonised via

strategies of corporate training, the creation of multiple task groups and chairs, or simply being excluded. From

2010, elements as diverse as the financial crisis, austerity and new Government agendas such as localism

became mobilised locally by these old grievances, challenging ‘taken-for-granted’ corporate practices of change

and policy-making. For example, a representative from an LSP organisation believed that policies such as “the

localism agenda” offered organisations outside the County Council the opportunity to have “more control […]

over funding and priorities” (LSP 17). A District senior officer agreed that “if you t[ook] it in its purest form”,

localism may constitute a threat to the County (DCOfficer 16). Councillors too believed that “the job […] of a

councillor now [was] changing”, becoming one of “understand[ing] different agencies” and “bringing

everything together for those people out there” (Councillors 25 and 30). This new context of change where

partners could decide their “own destiny” (CED 8) was seen by corporate managers as creating complexities

(CED 22), “local authorities were now left with their partners to actually think ‘what are we trying to do?’”

(CED 13).

In addressing those dislocations, the corporate centre formulated from 2010 a new reform: Integrated

Commissioning 2012 (IC 2012). This project framed conditions such as austerity, localism or partnership

disputes as dislocations requiring two ‘solutions’: the integration of partnerships and priorities, and the move to

the vaguely defined ‘commissioning’ of services. It was argued that this project would help Internshire Together

remain an ‘excellent’ locality, working better in ‘hard’ rather than ‘soft’ partnerships (Roadmap 2011). Partners

were for instance asked to draft ‘commissioning plans’, or planning documents outlining their three or four

priorities they would work towards, how they planned to achieve them and how they would collaborate with

other partnerships (known as ‘mutual asks’). Additionally, IC 2012 re-articulated the corporate centre as ‘critical

friend’ instead of the old command and control practices (an equality emphasised by the new organisation of

Internshire Together, reproduced in Figure 2 below). Instead of the corporate centre ‘telling’ other partners what

to do, organisational change (OC) would now be formulated and implemented according to an ‘iterative

process’ where everyone would have a say (Roadmap 2011: 4). The fantasmatic narrative of the regime was also

refuelled, austerity measures aiming to achieve more with less according to which ‘more’ efficiency and quality

could be achieved with ‘less’ money by changing the way services were organised and delivered. These central

tenets of IC 2012 were outlined in a key document, the IC 2012 Roadmap, which was adopted by all partners in

October 2011 (LSP Board, 7th October 2011).

Figure 2 about here

This project was abandoned. Yet understanding this requires examining the OC politics at play, as illustrated

here in three examples: the emptying of the signifier ‘commissioning’, the failed reorganisation of Internshire’s

spaces, and the failure of the regime’s fantasmatic narrative to cover over its continued control.

Commissioning: an empty signifier losing credibility

Disputes around commissioning and its progressive loss of credibility as an empty signifier illustrate the

complexity of OC politics. With IC 2012, commissioning had been progressively emptied of meaning, as

illustrated by the Roadmap’s definitions:

“A common question raised in the development of this note was ‘what is commissioning’? At its

most basic it describes a process by which we, as a partnership, identify strategic outcomes and

priorities in relation to user needs, and obtain appropriate services to deliver these outcomes.

Commissioning does not necessarily involve outsourcing services but instead involves considering a

range of possible options including public, private and voluntary sector organisations” (Roadmap

2011: 9)

As illustrated here, commissioning came to represent a ‘fuller’ but impossible future of seamless services and

equal partnership working, with unlimited options. Yet, during the implementation, commissioning’s far-

reaching practices became problematic.

At first, commissioning presented characteristics of a ‘successful’ empty signifier. It appealed to an array of

demands, the 33 interviews collected epitomising this, with 317 responses being formulated by interviewees to

the question ‘what is commissioning?’ These responses were collated into 39 themes where commissioning was

linked, for instance, to outsourcing (27 responses) or partnership integration (34 responses). Specifically, themes

such as commissioning as capable of dealing with issues of outcomes (17 responses) or representing more than

procurement (29 responses) illustrated how this signifier gripped the hopes of local players, symbolising

something ‘more than’ or different from outsourcing and procurement. Second, commissioning also symbolised

a future still to come, once priorities and partnerships had been integrated (20). Once these steps were

completed, commissioning would, for instance, allow greater trust (6), pooled budgets (5), or better negotiation

with providers (2), echoing the Roadmap’s own open definition of commissioning (Roadmap 2011: 9).

Additionally, commissioning represented the corporate centre’s own logics, being linked to practices of

partnership integration, priority setting, or commissioning plans (i.e. IC 2012’s own practices illustrated in the

Roadmap; 59 responses). Commissioning was deliberately maintained as open by the corporate centre, its

managers emphasising that commissioning would be “define[d] as [people went] along” (CCOfficer 2), with

this Department helping to “interpret and share understanding” (CED 11). The corporate centre insisted that the

meaning of commissioning would be negotiated via partnership exercises. This openness represented a central

strategy to facilitate the adoption of the project by appealing to a wider array of demands, as illustrated by this

corporate manager:

“If we spent time going around speaking to people saying ‘this is commissioning’, I would have been

going further than my Chief Executive wanted me to go. I would have lost the support of people if

that’s a thing that they didn’t want to do” (CED 33)

Thus commissioning was articulated “as a nudge” (CED 8), where “integration and commissioning work[ed]

[…] and […] appeal[ed] at the same time” (CED 3). In September 2012, as the project was stalling, another

corporate manager explained that “there [was] something necessarily fluid about that concept” (CED 33), this

‘fluidity’ helping to draw equivalences between a wide array of demands, despite a context crisscrossed with

grievances towards the corporate centre.

Alongside this multiplicity and openness of commissioning, the corporate centre sought re-sedimenting its old

corporate and performance management logics via new control practices, which commissioning as an empty

signifier dissimulated. One of them was the review of all the commissioning plans (as ‘critical friends’)

(Roadmap 2011: 3-4). Corporate managers were implicitly tasked with determining whether such documents

could be called “commissioning plans” (CCOfficer 9). The review of these plans by corporate managers was

framed as necessary in triggering “a lot of negotiation […] between the different partnerships” (CED 12 and 8).

In practice, that negotiation involved corporate managers “look[ing] at [commissioning plans] alongside each

other” (CED 12), evaluating “how well” they worked and how they were “actually going to deliver” (CED 13),

and “making sure it was consistent with other things” (CED 12). In short, the review of these plans offered the

corporate centre the opportunity to define each of them according to the corporate centre’s own logics, subtly

playing in-between the openness and particularity of commissioning.

However, from 2012, commissioning lost credibility as an empty signifier, illustrated by two events: the

challenge processes. Organised in February 2012, these events, defined by the Roadmap as “[k]ey [in] creating a

culture of self-challenge within and across boards” (Roadmap 2011: 7), brought together partners to discuss

their commissioning plans and “negotiate” where they could join up priorities (CED 13 and 11). These events

however failed to achieve the corporate centre’s objectives, triggering more disputes and doubts from partners

over commissioning. Despite corporate managers controlling all aspects of one of these meetings taking place

on 9th February 2012, down to the seating arrangements, the event resulted in participants disputing what

commissioning meant. One District Leader for instance thought “commissioning [was] different from a market-

led solution” whilst a District Chief Executive suggested that where the money was, lay the “real

commissioning”. Some participants defined commissioning as working better together, in line with the corporate

centre’s definition. Participants blamed the excessively mystified meaning of commissioning. For example, a

District Chief Executive asked what was commissioned in an integrated way within the partnership, to which

someone answered “health”. This led other participants to argue that that example may actually be called “joint

spending” rather than commissioning. During the last minutes of this event, discussions became concentrated

around commissioning’s definition, a District Chief Executive warning of “the risk” that partners would “end up

thinking [they were] doing different stuff”. Where commissioning should have remained open to continue

hegemonising demands, participants were demanding particularity and clarity.

Thus commissioning “seem[ed] to be an awful lot of things, from hard fast cash to […] do[ing] things more

jointly” (DCOfficer 16). It represented a “danger” if “becoming so broad that it did not mean anything” (CED

2). According to some, “the problem [was that] people use[d] the word commissioning and actually [were]

never sure what it [was]” (DCCEX 23). Its lack of definition was problematic for some who were losing

confidence in commissioning to represent their demands (DCOfficer 16 and CCOfficer 2), two District Chief

Executives believing it was “a pretty amorphous thing” (DCCEX 1) and that “it [was] not a word that actually

[they] fe[lt] particularly comfortable with” (DCCEX 24). Commissioning was becoming increasingly disputed

and thus a floating signifier. A District Chief Executive explained for example that if “a hundred different

people” were asked, “a hundred different meanings” would be given (DCCEX 23). These participants asked for

“clarity of definition of commissioning” (DCCEX 26; also 24). Rather than a credible empty signifier linking

together different demands, commissioning was becoming a liability, hindering the success of IC 2012, as

illustrated by the following District Chief Executive:

“People will always be very dubious about throwing themselves a hundred per cent into it because

they are never quite sure of what it is they’re getting involved in. […] We need to strip it back to

basics, about actually what it is we’re talking about when we’re talking about commissioning”

(DCCEX 23)

In short, commissioning had failed to remain a credible empty signifier for IC 2012, becoming instead the

subject of disputes and suspicion by local players. The supposed universality of commissioning became

increasingly contrasted with the particular practices that the corporate centre was badging as ‘commissioning’

such as commissioning plans and particular priorities.

A failed re-organisation of Internshire’s spaces

Another example illustrating OC politics relates to the corporate centre’s attempts to restructure Internshire’s

hierarchy. Indeed, despite every player being redefined as a supposedly equal ‘commissioner’ playing a role in

policy-making, a new élite of ‘strategic leaders’ was maintained. This informal hierarchy rekindled a number of

grievances.

Although IC 2012 was agreed by partners in October 2011, this was only at the strategic level, involving lead-

members, Chief Executives and senior representatives from the LSP. The corporate centre believed that a

coalition at this top level, symbolised in the new IC 2012 structure as ‘equal’ to others (cf. horizontal

organisation of Figure 2), was a priority, with the expectation that “politicians and senior officers [would be]

leading that culture and setting the example […], challenging stuff in their organisations” (DCCEX 24), as had

happened in the County since the 1980s. Speaking in September 2012, a corporate manager explained that there

had been a good buy-in from the strategic level of Internshire Together, saying that “the Chief Executive level

here, District councils, probation, police and others, the NHS importantly [had] gripped this agenda” (CED 33).

In October 2012, a CED presentation to the Corporate Management Team corroborated this, stating that

“[i]mproved day-to-day relationships across senior leaders in the Partnership (particularly with District Council

Chief Execs)” had taken place (Crisis Meeting, 4th October 2012).

The support of this ‘top’ space was however problematic. Even in 2009, it was identified as the “key challenge”

in building “the bridge that [would] help [Internshire Together] realise [its] vision” (Commissioning Handbook,

IT, 2009: 1). Despite appealing to “that very top level”, IC 2012 was not happening “everywhere and in

everything like the levels that you would hope” (CED 33). IC 2012 had not become ‘the rules of the game’, an

October 2012 Crisis meeting acknowledging that “Integrated Commissioning [was] not, in general, seen as ‘how

things are done’ among Chief Officers/[Assistant Directors]/Service Managers” (4 th October 2012).

In fact, grievances from non-‘strategic’ groups remained muted. Corporate managers recognised during the

implementation that County senior officers, councillors, middle management, Districts and front-line staff did

“not feel represented” in IC 2012 (CED 12; also CED 13). The language of “strategic leadership” was deemed

by one County senior officer to have “lost most people” (CCOfficer 32), illustrating how dominant practices and

techniques associated with this strategic group (e.g. chairs, training) were not deployed across other spaces in

Internshire, thus creating an informal hierarchy which contradicted the equality suggested (cf. Figure 2 above).

For instance, District Councils’ grievances were not addressed. One District Chief Executive posed the

condition that the project must “make sense, either locally and for the greater good” (DCCEX 26). Other District

Chief Executives explained that they did not understand “how it [would] practically pan out” (DCCEX 24 and

15). The diagrams and strategies produced by the corporate centre did not address local grievances, overlooking

“the pragmatic stuff that needs to be done before you can deliver those grand plans” (DCCEX 24). Furthermore,

rather than being ‘cajoled’ into consenting, some of these Districts explained how “a political push” was applied

from the County in seeing particular priorities ‘ticked’, or adopted by Districts in their commissioning plans.

The appeal of IC 2012 was failing with this group, as strikingly portrayed by struggles being staged in the

Environment hub (right-hand side, Figure 2). Here, old myths of County ‘take over’ and Districts’ inefficiency

re-emerged in the negotiation of this hub’s plan and composition. A District senior officer illustrated this take-

over threat remarking that “it seem[ed] like County [had] an awful lot of influence”, determining the strategic

direction of services whilst Districts remained “actually responsible to deliver” (DCOfficer 16). Here, other

discursive practices such as the corporate centre ‘pushing’ specific priorities were mobilised by District

participants as the same old County take-over. Thus the supposed novelty and inclusiveness of IC 2012 did not

cover over the County’s continued desire to control.

This failure of appealing to these different spaces was twofold. The corporate centre had failed to articulate any

group’s long-held grievances, apart from the top strategic level. But equally, the corporate centre was unable to

control the increasingly disparate practices becoming associated with IC 2012 by these different groups. Indeed,

most commissioning plans formulated by these different groups “carr[ied] on doing [their] individual thing”

(CED 33), strongly echoing their own demands and reproducing their particular practices. To summarise here,

IC 2012 had failed to re-organise Internshire’s hierarchy, whilst failing to address multiple groups’ grievances.

A fantasmatic narrative failing to cover over the continued corporate control

A final example illustrates the emotional dimension of OC politics, relating to the failing grip of the regime’s

fantasmatic narrative. The corporate centre’s control could not be successfully covered over by IC 2012’s

fantasmatic narrative mobilising austerity, partnership and efficiency. This narrative was not able to grip

individual fears and desires around the ‘need’ for IC 2012. Three key aspects of this narrative are here

discussed.

First, relating to austerity, IC 2012 argued that, by integrating and rationalising priorities and partnerships,

Internshire would be able to counter austerity, achieving ‘more with less’. Some participants agreed that IC

2012 was helping Districts understand “what [their] priorities [were]”, “bringing together a number of lead-

officers” in deciding “how things [could] be joined up better” (DCCEX 1). Yet, the majority of organisational

players mobilised rival narratives of austerity, framing the CED’s solutions as obsolete and inefficient. For

instance, some called for divided responses, arguing that “in a time where there [was] less and less money

around, people [were not] going to want to give away their control over their money to a bigger organisation or

body” (DCCEX 23). Similarly, others argued that austerity required local solutions rather than integration.

According to a District Chief Executive, these claims recognised “ that localities have got probably in terms of

delivery a far greater level of delivery collaboratively than what occur[red] at County level” (DCCEX 1). It was

the Districts’ role to “think about what [they were] commissioning, what [they] [could] provide locally and cut

back on some areas” (DCOfficer 16), addressing austerity with local decisions (also Councillor 30 and

DCOfficer 16). Finally, for some, austerity was not a threat, explaining that their organisation was “protected

somewhat because of the sound [local] financial management” (DCOfficer 16), or “a very strong performance

plan” and savings already made (DCCEX 26; also CCOfficer 32). Thus austerity was linked to other narratives,

either legitimising local solutions or understood as a threat that was manageable and did not require integrative

solutions. Here, IC 2012 had failed to remain in control of the meaning of austerity.

Second, this narrative’s components became mobilised by other, more successful, narratives. Divergent

practices of partnership working persisted, without the narrative of IC 2012 succeeding in unifying these. IC

2012’s future of collaboration did not ‘grip’, each sub-partnership (cf. right-hand side of Figure 2) remaining

attached to their own priorities. Corporate managers explained that certain boards “could do a lot more to help

[the LSP]” but that was “not one of their top priorities” (CCOfficer 9). The post-2010 shifting context of

localism and austerity was being mobilised by partners to individualise priorities. Despite the narrative of

collaboration, a corporate manager explained that “the cultural differences in each different organisation” led to

people having “a different understanding, a different buy-in into the partnership working” (CED 22; also CED

14 and 13). Corporate managers sometimes “felt [they were] going around with a begging bowl” asking

partnerships to collaborate (CCOfficer 9).

Third, Districts contested IC 2012’s partnership narrative, explaining that partnership should be defined on a

case-by-case basis, according to one District Chief Executive, declaring “partnership should come” when “there

[was] a mutual ground” (DCCEX 26). Partnership working would be “more successful if all the locally-

developed collaborations became the foundations of the services” (DCCEX 1). Practices of listening (DCCEX

15), bottom-up organisation and policy-making were mobilised locally as more resonant with the Government’s

localism agenda that IC 2012 (DCCEX 1). The need to “create an organic, sensible, pragmatic way of working”

to “get the highest results” was emphasised (DCCEX 26; also 1). Thus, although partnership and austerity were

still salient demands, IC 2012’s mobilisations of those within its narrative did not ‘stick’, other players buying

into other narratives, especially localism and the kaleidoscopic possibilities of partnership working.

This inability of IC 2012’s narrative to ‘grip’ meant that it was failing the key requirement of any fantasmatic

narrative: covering over the continued control practices of the corporate centre. This failure brought

organisational players into contesting the novelty of IC 2012, which looked like yet another corporate

management project. Hailed by the Roadmap as a “new process”, “new model”, “new way of working”, “new

agenda” and a “new system” (Roadmap, 2011: 2; 5; 6; 9; 11), the same old corporate management logics of

planning, centralised management and a strategic divide were in practice redeployed. Contesting this business-

as-usual, other organisational players resurrected old metaphors of industry, machine and bureaucracy to

characterise IC 2012 (DCCEX 1; 15; 23; 24; 26; and LSP 17).

Discussion and concluding remarks

This paper has illustrated what discourse theory brings to the critical understanding of organisational change

(OC) politics. First, adding to the work of Contu et al. (2010), Thomas and Davies (2005) and Thomas et al.

(2011), the concept of fantasmatic narratives was deployed to further grasp the affective dimension of OC

politics, emphasising its appeal as well as constant fragility. Second, building on Angouri and Glynos (2009)

and Harding (2005), discursive concepts of empty/floating signifiers, hegemony and demand were mobilised to

analyse the constant re-articulation and conflicts over meaning. Third, the paper added to the growing number of

micro-studies of OC politics (Thomas & Davies 2005; Weick 1998). Deploying a logics approach mobilising

problematisation, characterisation of logics, retroduction and situated critique, the study was able to demonstrate

the situatedness and multi-dimensionality of OC politics. These three proposals are here reviewed in light of the

case study findings.

The paper echoes other critical studies’ call for greater exploration of discursive frameworks to develop situated

critiques of the numerous and contradictory practices – e.g. behaviours, actions, beliefs, objects, struggles –

constituting organisational politics. I have added to these by questioning understandings of OC, problematising

change projects, their origins, and struggles, exploring how the individual as subject is constituted and makes

sense of these phenomena, and emphasising the situated dimension of change and its conflicts.

First, the paper has offered an explanation in more details the emotional aspect of organisational politics. For

instance, Stavrakakis (2008) and Thomas and Davies (2005) demonstrate the importance of identity work,

deploying for instance Lacan’s psychoanalysis in understanding how organisational discourses gain the consent

of individuals with different backgrounds and beliefs. By deploying the concept of fantasmatic narratives, as

formulated by Griggs and Howarth (2013), the paper offers an additional ‘tool’ in grasping the affective

dimension of OC politics. It questions what ‘gripped’ people vis-à-vis IC 2012. Austerity and partnership

discourses illustrated the ‘soft’ side of organisational power, seeking to appeal to different individuals across

Internshire by mobilising individual fears such as the locality losing its reputation for excellence and closing

services, and desires such as doing ‘more with less’ and everyone becoming an equal ‘commissioner’. However,

unlike traditional understandings of ideology as a lie duping individuals, these narratives are not invincible,

requiring constant re-articulation of their key components (e.g. austerity, partnership) to ward off competing

ideological constructions such as partnership as equality or austerity as requiring local solutions. Via this

concept, this paper thus contributes to studies examining the ideological dimension of organisational politics,

demonstrating that the unexplainable or irrational must also be dissected and reviewed.

Second, as illustrated by the disputes over commissioning in Internshire, the paper demonstrates how conflicts

in OC are constant, hegemonic discourses remaining at the mercy of competing constructions and grievances.

This iterativeness, where power and resistance are constitutive of each other, helps recast OC politics in a

different light, not as defined categories, but as chaotic/pragmatic and constantly changing. Authors such as

Fleming and Spicer (2008) or Ezzamel et al. (2001) have demonstrated this intertwining, examining for instance

how “individuals exploit the looseness around meaning in a constant and simultaneous process of resistance,

reproduction and reinscription” (Thomas & Davies 2005, p.599). Commissioning in Internshire is a good

example of this ‘looseness’. Here, the corporate centre sought emptying the concept of commissioning to draw

together always more diverse and contradictory demands such as outsourcing, partnership and involving ‘more

than procurement’, with the endgame of limiting resistance. This however failed, other players becoming

mistrustful of commissioning, thus leading to commissioning becoming a disputed and floating signifier with

competing meanings. Concepts of empty/floating signifiers, hegemony and demand help illustrate the process

via which organisational discourses seek gaining control, notably how particularly ‘appealing’ signifiers such as

Internshire’s commissioning lose credibility and are defeated. Furthermore, the example of the new subject

position of commissioners and how these became contested by organisational players further illustrates the

precariousness of hegemony vis-à-vis unaddressed grievances such as equality and participation. The cosmetic

equality of commissioners was not sufficient in covering over the continued control of Internshire Together by a

few ‘strategic leaders’. Through these examples, the study contributes to research emphasising the complexity

and precariousness of power and resistance in OC.

Third, by constructing a single case study of an organisation under reform, and analysing different discursive

practices within a problematised and retroductive analytical framework, the paper adds to studies emphasising

the situatedness of power-resistance plays (Thomas & Davies 2005), demonstrating the benefits of purposefully

devised ‘tools’ attuned to the specific context. For instance, the four problematisations (Figure 1) allowed

selecting research questions which would help explore the intricacies of OC politics specific to Internshire.

Indeed, rather than analysing pre-given groups (e.g. managers, employees), documents (e.g. change project), or

levels of change (e.g. national versus local), the research demonstrated the advantages of commencing with a

questioning of the organisation, its players, and its change projects. This required constructing a history of OC

politics in Internshire, exploring the ignoble origins of reforms, and past struggles (problematisation 1). This

quest also implied examining how resistance to change had been overcome in the past (e.g. were opponents

framed as dangerous to the organisation’s future?), was a logic of equivalence, favouring neat divisions,

mobilised (e.g. Internshire versus Government), or was a logic of difference, favouring multiplicity, articulated

(e.g. during the inauguration of the LSP) to draw wide alliances? (problematisation 2). Furthermore, how was

the specific change project formulated? What were its key ‘governing rules’ or logics? How did it seek to rule,

include/exclude, and grip demands across the locality? (problematisation 3). Finally, how and why did IC 2012

fail? (problematisation 4). The three types of logics constitute another tool in examining the different ‘pushes’

and ‘pulls’ of OC discourses, constituted from past and present struggles and alliances (political logics), seeking

to mobilise particular elements as norms and rules (social logics), and appealing to individual fears and desires

(fantasmatic logics). The paper’s discursive and logics framework brought forward a more complex tale of

power-resistance, with its multiple threads, always exposed to resistance and always in flux. This helped stress

the tensions and ambiguities constitutive of OC. Overall, this paper has demonstrated how discourse theory,

alongside a logics approach and thick descriptive case study research, can help develop a different and nuanced

explanation of OC politics, linking with studies such as Tsoukas and Chia (2002) and Weick (1998). Overall,

the mixed methods approach of this paper highlights the multiple origins, components, and myths constitutive of

OC politics, leading to a more holistic understanding of power-resistance in these contexts. The paper here adds

to a growing body of literature in organisational studies and beyond emphasising the importance of situated

characterisations and explanations of phenomena such as OC.

Yet, this type of research is often considered to have limited generalisability, with its situated problematisations,

explanatory framework and critique. The research can however still contribute some general comments

informing other studies and even organisations themselves. For instance, the failure of IC 2012 illustrates the

importance of negotiation and the constitutiveness of conflict for organisations. By only offering ‘cosmetic’

negotiation opportunities (e.g. challenge process sessions, a short and superficial consultation process), the

corporate centre sought controlling and asepticising a key component of OC if the latter is to be durable, widely

accepted and equal: negotiation. This remark links with Mouffe’s (2007) discussion of agonism, where conflict

and negotiation are framed as constitutive parts of any democratic process, including an organisation, requiring

time, energy, struggle and disagreement. To conclude, this paper has sought to stress the benefits of situated

analytical frameworks, dynamic and constantly iterated theoretical concepts to grasp the multiple dimensions of

organisational power and resistance. It is felt that more understanding of diverse empirical contexts could be

developed to build relevant theory that can accommodate contingency.

Bibliography

Ackroyd, S. & Thompson, P., 1999. Organizational Misbehaviour, London: Sage.

Angouri, J. & Glynos, J., 2009. Managing cultural difference and struggle in the context of the

multinational corporate workplace: Solution or symptom?, Colchester.

Barge, K. & Oliver, C., 2003. Working with Appreciation in Managerial Practice. Academy of

Management Review, 28(1), pp.124–142.

van Bommel, K. & Spicer, A., 2011. Hail the Snail: Hegemonic Struggles in the Slow Food Movement.

Organization Studies, 32(12), pp.1717–1744.

Bridgman, T., 2007. Freedom and autonomy in the university enterprise P. Gleadle, ed. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 20(4), pp.478–490.

Bridgman, T. & Willmott, H., 2006. Institutions and Technology: Frameworks for Understanding

Organizational Change--The Case of a Major ICT Outsourcing Contract. The Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 42(1), pp.110–126.

Collinson, D.L., 2003. Identities and Insecurities: Selves at Work. Organization, 10(3), pp.527–547.

Contu, A., 2008. Decaf Resistance: On Misbehavior, Cynicism, and Desire in Liberal Workplaces.

Management Communication Quarterly, 21(3), pp.364–379.

Contu, A., Driver, M. & Jones, C., 2010. Editorial: Jacques Lacan with organization studies. Organization,

17(3), pp.307–315.

Contu, A., Palpacuer, F. & Balas, N., 2013. Multinational corporations’ politics and resistance to plant

shutdowns : a comparative case study in the south of France. Human Relations.

Essers, J., Böhm, S. & Contu, A., 2009. Corporate Robespierres, ideologies of management and change.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(2), pp.129–140.

Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H. & Worthington, F., 2001. Power, Control and Resistance in ‘The Factory That

Time Forgot’. Journal of Management Studies, 38(8), pp.1053–1079.

Fairclough, N., 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, London: Longman.

Fleming, P. & Spicer, A., 2008. Beyond Power and Resistance: New Approaches to Organizational

Politics. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(3), pp.301–309.

Fleming, P. & Spicer, A., 2003. Working at a Cynical Distance: Implications for Power, Subjectivity and

Resistance. Organization, 10(1), pp.157–179.

Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2),

pp.219–245.

Gagnon, S. & Collinson, D., 2014. Rethinking Global Leadership Development Programmes: The

Interrelated Significance of Power, Context and Identity. Organization Studies, 35(5), pp.645–670.

Glynos, J., 2008. Ideological fantasy at work. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(3), pp.275–296.

Glynos, J. & Howarth, D., 2007. Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory, London:

Routledge.

Grey, C. & Willmott, H., 2005. Critical Management Studies - A Reader, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Griggs, S. & Howarth, D., 2013. The Politics of Airport Expansion in the United Kingdom, Manchester:

Manchester University Press.

Harding, N., 2005. The inception of the National Health Service: a daily managerial accomplishment.

Journal of health organization and management, 19(3), pp.261–72.

HM Treasury, 2010. Spending Review 2010, London.

Howarth, D., 2000. Discourse, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Howarth, D., 2008. Pluralizing Methods: Contingency, Ethics, and Critical Explanation, Colchester.

Howarth, D. & Griggs, S., 2006. Metaphor, Catachresis and Equivalence: The Rhetoric of Freedom to Fly

in the Struggle over Aviation Policy in the United Kingdom. Policy and Society, 25(2), pp.23–46.

Jas, P., 2013. The role of interim managers in performance improvement: evidence from English local

authorities. Public Money & Management, 33(1), pp.15–22.

Jones, C. & Spicer, A., 2005. The Sublime Object of Entrepreneurship. Organization, 12(2), pp.223–246.

Jupp, V. & Norris, C., 1993. Traditions in documentary analysis. In M. Hammersley, ed. Social Research:

Philosophy, Politics and Practice. London: Sage, pp. 37–51.

Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. & Jick, T.D., 1992. The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies

Experience it and Leaders Guide it, New York: Free Press.

Kwon, W., Clarke, I. & Wodak, R., 2014. Micro-Level Discursive Strategies for Constructing Shared

Views around Strategic Issues in Team Meetings. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), pp.265–

290.

Laclau, E., 1996. Emancipation(s), Verso.

Laclau, E., 2006. Ideology and post-Marxism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), pp.103–114.

Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C., 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics,

London: Verso.

MacKillop, E., 2014. Understanding discourses of organization, change and leadership: An English local

government case study. DeMontfort University, Leicester.

Mouffe, C., 2007. Artistic activism and agonistic spaces. Art and Research, 1(2), pp.1–5.

Parker, M. & Dent, M., 1996. Managers, Doctors, and Culture: Changing an English Health District.

Administration & Society, 28(3), pp.335–361.

Rhodes, C., Pullen, A. & Clegg, S.R., 2009. ‘If I Should Fall From Grace…’: Stories of Change and

Organizational Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), pp.535–551.

Roadmap (Internshire County Council), 2011. The Integrated Commissioning Roadmap, version 2.

Spicer, A., Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D., 2009. Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical

management studies. Human Relations, 62(4), pp.537–560.

Spicer, A. & Sewell, G., 2010. From National Service to Global Player: Transforming the Organizational

Logic of a Public Broadcaster. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), pp.913–943.

Stavrakakis, Y., 2008. Peripheral Vision: Subjectivity and the Organized Other: Between Symbolic

Authority and Fantasmatic Enjoyment. Organization Studies, 29(7), pp.1037–1059.

Thomas, R. & Davies, A., 2005. Theorizing the Micro-politics of Resistance: New Public Management

and Managerial Identities in the UK Public Services. Organization Studies, 26(5), pp.683–706.

Thomas, R. & Hardy, C., 2011. Reframing resistance to organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of

Management, 27(3), pp.322–331.

Thomas, R. & Linstead, A., 2002. Losing the Plot? Middle Managers and Identity. Organization, 9(1),

pp.71–93.

Thomas, R., Sargent, L.D. & Hardy, C., 2011. Managing Organizational Change: Negotiating Meaning

and Power-Resistance Relations. Organization Science, 22(1), pp.22–41.

Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R., 2002. On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change.

Organization Science, 13(5), pp.567–582.

Van de Ven, A.H. & Poole, M.S., 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of

Management Review, 20(3), pp.510–540.

Weick, K.E., 1998. Introductory Essay—Improvisation as a Mindset for Organizational Analysis.

Organization Science, 9(5), pp.543–555.