Dan Kärreman and Mats Alvesson

http://hum.sagepub.com/Human Relations

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/62/8/1115The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0018726709334880

2009 62: 1115Human RelationsDan Kärreman and Mats Alvesson

consultancy firmResisting resistance: Counter-resistance, consent and compliance in a

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human RelationsAdditional services and information for

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/62/8/1115.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 28, 2009Version of Record >>

at University of Canberra on October 6, 2014hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Canberra on October 6, 2014hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/62/8/1115

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.tavinstitute.org/index.php

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/62/8/1115.refs.html

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/62/8/1115.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Resisting resistance: Counter-resistance,consent and compliance in a consultancy firmDan Kärreman and Mats Alvesson

A B S T R AC T Consent, obedience and resistance can be seen as key concerns in

management and organization. Why people comply is a crucial issue

in the field. We address the theme within a specific area: manage-

ment consultants in a big firm that places quite a lot of pressure on

its personnel to be hardworking and predictable and to subordinate

themselves to hierarchy, standards and tight production schedules. By

studying how the discourses of Ambition and Autonomy clash and

interact in a consultancy firm, we add and develop the concept of

counter-resistance to expand our understanding of the dynamics of

resistance. The idea is to show how the impulse to resist becomes

countered and neutralized. The study offers insights into the deeper

mechanisms and dynamics behind consent and shows the multi-

dimensional character of resistance.

K E Y WO R D S discourse analysis � management � organizational theory power� resistance

When and why do people in organizations obey? When and why do theyresist? How do these reactions play out? Themes like consent, obedience andresistance can be seen as key concerns in management and organization. Asa wide body of literature suggests, the answers to these questions in organiz-ation analysis depend on context. In this article, we address them within a specific area: management consultants in a big firm that places quite a lot

1 1 1 5

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726709334880

Volume 62(8): 1115–1144

© The Author(s), 2009

Reprints and Permissions:

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/

journalsPermissions.nav

The Tavistock Institute ®

http://hum.sagepub.com

at University of Canberra on October 6, 2014hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from


of pressure on its personnel to be hardworking, predictable and willing to subordinate themselves to hierarchy, standards and tight productionschedules.

Our case is perhaps of extra interest as it is an example of ‘knowledgework’. In short, knowledge work is work that involves – or is assumed toinvolve – the application of sophisticated knowledge by knowledgeableindividuals, or indeed, the development of new knowledge. Knowledge workby definition includes individual judgment and discretion (Alvesson, 2004)and therefore it appears to also reduce the significance of the manager – atleast as a manager is conventionally understood. Knowledge work perhapsinvolves the orchestrated work of several knowledgeable specialists, but itleaves little room for pure orchestrators.

However, in this article we are going to discuss and analyze a casewhere knowledge workers appear subject not only to managerial division oflabor, but also to what they experience as extreme work conditions, inparticular long working hours, and yet they subject themselves willingly.They do not engage much in protest, sabotage or other forms of ‘explicit’resistance and there are very few visible signs of resistance to the prescribedsubjectivity. This phenomenon prompts at least two questions: how does thishappen? Why don’t the knowledge workers resist? In this article we attemptto answer both. In short and in reverse order, our answer is that they do, ina sense, ‘resist’, although in unexpected and interrupted ways. By studyinghow the discourses of Ambition and Autonomy clash and interact in aconsultancy firm, we add and develop the concept of counter-resistance inan attempt to further expand our understanding of the dynamics of resist-ance. The idea is to show how the impulse to resist becomes countered andneutralized.

The article is organized as follows: we start with an elaboration of thecharacteristics of knowledge work and then move on to a discussion of theconcepts of power and resistance. After a short note on methodology, the caseis introduced and briefly described. Patterns of resistance and compliance inthe case are analyzed and discussed. The article concludes with a discussionof the relationship between compliance, identification, subordination andconformity.

Some key characteristics of knowledge work

Knowledge, knowledge-intensive firms and knowledge work has fast becomeone of the most popular areas of research in organization studies (seeAlvesson, 2004; Deetz, 1995, 1998; Journal of Management Studies, 1993;

Human Relations 62(8)1 1 1 6



Morris & Empson, 1998; Nonaka, 1994; Spender, 1996; Starbuck, 1992).Knowledge work differs from other forms of work because it is assumed todraw upon intellectual and cognitive abilities, rather than strength, craft,capital or a well-oiled machinery. People working in management consul-tancy and other knowledge-intensive firms are typically assumed to beengaged in complex and difficult tasks, which cannot be neatly convertedinto standardized work procedures and regulations. Thus, knowledge-intensive companies are forced to attract and retain qualified people who canadapt their repertoires to meet the demands of the task. Consequently,management strictly through a focus on behavior is difficult as a consider-able amount of self-organization is necessary. In contrast to bureaucracieswhere mission-critical organizational knowledge is ‘stored’ or is mademanifest in procedures and processes, knowledge-intensive firms utilizeknowledge made manifest in qualified individuals.

Interestingly, power in and around knowledge work and operating onemployees in knowledge intensive firms is rarely analyzed explicitly, with onlya few exceptions (e.g. Deetz, 1995; Kosmala & Herrbach, 2006). Typically,power is analyzed implicitly and usually under the label of control (Kärreman& Alvesson, 2004; Kunda, 1992; Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983). As Kunda (1992)– drawing on Etzioni (1964) – observed, knowledge-intensive firms operatein circumstances where behavior in key respects might be out of reach ofexplicit efforts to organize and control, for example, where professionalsmake judgment calls in complex situations. By necessity, managerial activitiestend to target behavior indirectly in such organizations. Of course, control inall organizations addresses a large number of objects using a multitude of means, from formal rules and structures, to a variety of output and process measures, supervision, promotions, rewards, normative control, etc.(Alvesson & Kärreman, 2004). However, management in knowledge-intensive firms tends to pay more attention to the regulation of ideas, beliefs,values and identities of employees than most other organizations. The sub-jectivity of employees becomes highly central. To produce individuals with the right mindset and motivation becomes a more vital part of the totalapparatus of control mechanisms and practices than is the case for otherorganizations.

Power in organizations

Mainstream management theory generally prefers to refer euphemistically topower, by means of concepts such as leadership, restructuring, and down-sizing, or even inverse euphemisms, such as team-work and empowerment,

Kärreman & Alvesson Resisting resistance 1 1 1 7



than to engage directly with the many facets of power. Yet, as Pfeffer (1992)points out, even from a managerialist point of view this strategy is inherentlyproblematic:

It is not clear that by ignoring the social realities of power and influ-ence we can make them go away, or that by trying to build simpler,less interdependent social structures we succeed in building organiz-ations that are more effective or that have greater survival value . . .By trying to ignore issues of power and influence in organization, welose our chance to understand these critical social processes and trainmanagers to cope with them.

(p. 30)

Other managerialist authors see the will to power as an important andpositive motive for exercising influence (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Formore critically oriented scholars, power is a key theme and tends to be associ-ated with ‘negative’ or problematic aspects such as domination or suppres-sion of (legitimate) interests. With the expansion of critical managementstudies and the increasing popularity of feminism and poststructuralism –adding to labor process theory, ‘radical Weberianism’, critical theory, that is,what Burrell and Morgan (1979) refer to as radical structuralism and radicalhumanism – we have a broad set of power-detecting and -exploring perspec-tives. Power is here linked to the control of resources, structures, behaviors,agendas, ideologies and cultures, as well as various aspects of subjectivity(e.g. Clegg, 1989; Clegg et al., 1996; Hardy, 1994; Lukes, 1974).

Although power exists in many forms and shapes, it is typically under-stood from three dominant perspectives. In the first perspective – power asa restraining force – power is understood as something that makes peopledo things other people want them to do, thus restricting them from doingthings they otherwise would have chosen to do. In its most elementary form,power is from this perspective at display when A makes B to do things Botherwise wouldn’t do. A second perspective is less interested in naked powerthan in how ideologies and cultural traditions make people comply with anexisting order without much need for the mobilization of explicit power indealing with visible conflict (Lukes, 1974). This idea of social power providesa means to understand how power operates when social reality is constructedin ways that avoid visible conflict. Commentators with poststructuralistconvictions find in this analysis that power is ultimately something thatrestrains an ‘abstract, essential and autonomous individual, whose “real”interests are only discernible through the construction of relations that are“free” from the manipulative and distorted effects of power’ (Knights &McCabe, 1999: 203).




This hints at a third dominant perspective on power in which powerbecomes decoupled from specific interests and is viewed as a productive,rather than restrictive, force. Of course, most perspectives understand poweras a resource as well as a restriction, but this third view emphasizes theformer aspect. From this perspective, power is an integral part of socialreality that enables social agents to act in particular ways. This conceptionof power is said to understand power as ‘power to’, rather than as ‘powerover’ (Chan, 2000). The most important contributor to this perspective onpower is undoubtedly Foucault (1977, 1980; for applications in organizationstudies, see Alvesson, 1996; Burrell, 1988; Chan, 2000; Covaleski et al.,1998; Knights & Vurdubakis, 1994; Knights & Willmott, 1989).

Foucault regards power as the visible arrangement of practices that areapplied in a variety of forms and social fields. Power relations are best under-stood in terms of the forms and techniques in which they are expressed.Power is particularly involved in the production of the subject, throughdefining and fixing individuals’ sense of how they should be. Subjectivitytends to be reduced to an effect of power, which is decentralized from specificactors and their interests. It is the exercise of power that matters.

Foucault takes a particular interest in how emergent social practices,such as surveillance systems (e.g. the panopticon) and the organization ofindustrial work, are connected to the therapeutic notion of curing, ratherthan punishing, criminals, thus transforming the prison into an institutionbent on producing ‘corrected’ deviants, that is, normalized and domesticatedbodies that no longer engage in deviant (and dangerous) conduct (Foucault,1974). Consequently, according to Foucault, behavioral change in modernityis achieved through ‘a general recipe for the exercise of power over men: the“mind” as a surface of inscription of power, with semiology as its tool; thesubmission of bodies through control of ideas’ (Foucault, 1974: 102). Criticswould argue that this view means that ‘interests’ are removed from analysisand that the still considerable significance of material sources and operationsof power, as well as ideological forces (e.g. consumerism, market liberalism),escape serious attention (Hoy, 1986; Thompson, 2005).

Resistance

In any attempt to understand power, it is important to consider the potential for resistance. Although typically conceptualized as the flipside ofthe coin in relation to power, resistance is sometimes brought to the fore-front of analysis (e.g. Carr & Brower, 2000). Researchers using criticalperspectives tend to be particularly interested in the anatomy of resistance




(see Ball & Wilson, 2000; Fleming & Spicer, 2003; Jermier et al., 1994;Kersten, 1998; Knights & McCabe, 1999; Prasad & Prasad, 2000; Thomas& Davies, 2005).

Obviously, the meaning of resistance differs depending on the perspec-tive of power. The power-as-a-restraining-force perspective typically depictsresistance as more or less binary responses to the exercise of power. Suchresponses may include activities like, to cite Carr and Brower’s (2000) empiri-cal study, conditional effort (e.g. withdrawal and foot-dragging), exit, voice,sabotage, enacting alternative channels and engaging stakeholders (whichincludes well-known resistance strategies such as leaks and whistle blowing;see Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999, for a review). The common denominatorhere is that resistance is understood as a response to attempts to exercisepower over (Chan, 2000) the resisting party.

The power-as-a-productive-force perspective understands resistance,not as the opposite of power, but rather as inherent in the exercise of power.Resistance is thus not understood as something that is qualitatively differentfrom power but is an integral part of the exercise of power: it can assumemany forms, but always exists within a network of power relations. Thomasand Davies (2005) see resistance as ‘a constant process of adaptation,subversion and reinscription of dominant discourses’ (p. 687), the tensionsand contradictions of social processes around alternative discourses andsubject positions producing a deviation from a specifically prescribed subjectposition (Weedon, 1987). Almost everything related to subjectivity and notfully in line with a prescribed response may then be labeled ‘resistance’. Theapproach emphasizes the individual and the local setting and therefore ischaracterized by a rather limited focus (Ganesh et al., 2006). To considerwhat is happening after this redefinition of discourse and self is vital, yetoften marginalized by poststructuralist and Foucauldian views. The keyelement is the articulation of alternative meanings from the dominant/prescribed, in particular with regard to the self.

Resistance occurs because the exercise of power necessarily is activeand selective, thus inducing the possibility to counter-act and counter-select.Resistance is not clear cut, any more than power is, nor does it generate acoherent form or shape. Resistance and evasive action lead to new forms ofpower: ironically, it is in itself an example of power, as in power to (Chan,2000; see also Fleming & Spicer, 2007). It is important to stress that resist-ance is a form of power, as there is, arguably, a) some force behind theimpulse to resist and b) the effect of the resistance act (or experience implyinga protest) leads to a power response.

A key element here is that resistance can in itself be resisted. Mumby(1997) hints at this possibility in his analysis of the dialectics of hegemony,involving (modest) struggle. However, hegemony is a tricky concept: ‘one of




those baggy, and ambiguous categories in which Gramsci specialized’(Johnson, 2007: 97). In some interpretations, hegemony is viewed as beingabout ‘war of position’ leading to the mobilizing of desire and will for radicalchange or ‘passive revolution’. Here it is seen as the winning of consentthrough ideological uniformity that is accomplished through cultural andsymbolic means, while others invoke material and structural conditions(Johnson, 2007). Hegemony is also described as a ‘strategic, contingentcompliance, based on a realistic assessment of the balance of forces’ (Levyet al., 2003: 102).

More generally, the concept of hegemony – in the broad sense of somesort of centered consensus or common sense – does not allow for a distinc-tion between hegemonic responses to resistance (for example, by renderingresistance illegitimate and marginal through evoking common sense) andresisting resistance (for example, by non-commitment to particular sets ofaction suggested by previously embraced moves of resistance). In short,hegemonic responses to resistance presuppose a hegemon, while resistingresistance does not. In a multipolar context – such as knowledge-intensivefirms where corporate, professional, and personal identity projects (Alvesson& Kärreman, 2007) typically strive for definitional authority – the conceptof hegemony assumes and explains too much.

In this article, we therefore address a multipolar situation where astrong impulse to protest is somehow neutralized (without the direct use ofvisible power or explicit conflict) and we use the concept of counter-resistance to illuminate and to further our understanding of this form ofresistance. Counter-resistance is similar to hegemony in that it points to andhighlights the potential for moves of resistance to evoke counter-moves thatundermine, contradict and subvert them. It is not a view competing withhegemony, but it adds to the understanding of process, as well as to the innerdynamics of the (re-)production of consent in multipolar contexts and/or theabsence of action following on from a self-positioning implying resistance.The possibility of resisting resistance has hardly been addressed in theliterature. Our contribution here adds to broader views on ideological domi-nation and hegemony by zooming in on what may be behind a surfaceexpression of consent/lack of overt protest. Having said that, counter-resistance does not necessarily lead to consent, and consent is not necessarilyforged by counter-resistance only. Consent is an outcome that, clearly, canbe fueled by a wide array of other processes, for example, material rewards,sanctions, assessment of difficulties in accomplishing successful resistance.We return to this point below.

In the present case, we emphasize the level of discourse withoutnecessarily reducing the operations of power and compliance to this level.We think the structural, economic and ideological context of the case firm is




important to bear in mind – formal hierarchies, surveillance andrewards/sanctions of a material nature certainly interact with discourses.

It is important to go beyond subjectivity in studying resistance – weagree with Fleming and Spicer (2003), Ganesh et al. (2006) and Kunda (1992) that a refusal to let oneself be defined in line with corporate demandsor ideals is insufficient as a project of resistance if it is not accompanied byaction. Resistance, as we understand it, implies agency. Irony or refusal tobecome a ‘corporate dope’ may even legitimize compliant action, as this isseen as ‘not me’. But acts have as many, or more, ideological effects as subjec-tive beliefs (Fleming & Spicer, 2003). Efforts to accomplish transformationsare crucial and so ‘fully-fledged’ studies of resistance should thus considerboth subjectivity and action. But taking an interest in action – or the absenceof action – calls for attention to subjectivity both in relation to what is to beresisted (e.g. a standard for being/acting) and what is to be done in terms ofaction (i.e. the implications of this resistance). To resist the norm in terms ofself-definition (‘this is not me’) and to engage in resistance-action based on analternative self-definition (‘this is me’) are not necessarily the same thing. Onemay reject an effort from management to identify closely with the firm, butwhether this kind of resistance is related to a general discomfort or a specificsubject position as a professional, a family person or a union member isanother matter. We here explore the resistance dynamics following from theimpulse to resist, for example, what is happening when something triggers anon-compliant self-position? What discourse(s) and self-definition(s) areinvolved and how can we understand the relation between them?

Method

The empirical basis of this article comes from a case study of a managementconsulting firm. The empirical material consists of transcripts from 59 inter-views with 51 people, as well as notes from participant observation at severalorganizational gatherings. We performed six day-long observations and typi-cally focused on specific events, such as the annual meeting between managers(the top one-third of the firm participated), a training session organized by theconsultants, the inaugural meeting of a new competence group, variousinternal information events and a two-day participant observation of a typicalwork group. We also have observations of organizational members interact-ing with external audiences, that is, firm presentations for students and appear-ances at job fairs. People from all levels and sections of the organization havebeen interviewed: the CEO, people in managerial positions, support staff,newly recruited organizational members and so on (see Table 1).




Initially, we performed 20 interviews and four observations. Thismaterial indicated high degrees of conformism and compliance, and a strongemphasis on career, development and high performance, typically metered asamount of work hours. The observations were particularly instructive in thisphase. Subsequent interviews included probes into how informants perceivedcareer, workload, degrees of freedom and autonomy, and similar themes.Subsequent observations were carried out to illuminate these themes, forexample, we decided to follow a work group over two days, an exercise thatgave us in-depth understanding of the overt, covert and taken for grantedpressures organizational members both exert and receive to make everybodywork hard for long hours.

The material has primarily been analyzed through a form of discourseanalysis. In the following sections, we will present and analyze complianceand resistance in this consultancy firm from a discursive pragmatist approach(Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000a). Put briefly, discursive pragmatism is basedon an assumption that (some) language use is productive, but also may repre-sent phenomena (practices, meanings) at a ‘short distance’ from the site ofthe language use. For example, what is expressed in the interview situationdoes not mirror the mind of the interviewee in any abstract sense, but givesindications of some thoughts/feelings that the interviewee may experiencealso in other settings, not extremely different from the interview setting, forexample, when speaking freely with others about work or when given spaceto think about issues in a non-constraining and reflection-stimulating setting.


Table 1 Interviewee sample overview

Level # Participants # Interviews

ConsultantsPartner & Associate Partner 10 10Manager 12 15Consultant 12 12

StaffResearch (knowledge management) 4 8Finance 3 3HR 3 4

OutsidersEx-employees 2 2Customers 5 5

Total 51 59



The approach allows for sensitivity to language use in context, but alsoprovides space for the exploration of somewhat broader patterns. In a sense,discursive pragmatism attempts to claim the middle ground between the text-centric approach of micro-discourse (see Potter & Wetherell, 1987) and broader meso- as well as the all-encompassing and all-constitutingFoucauldian mega-discourses (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000b). The study ofdiscourses then does not necessarily have to be restricted to the text levelonly; it is possible to investigate issues ‘close’ to discourses, for example,dominant local meanings and practices. Having said that, discursive prag-matism also allows for some textual autonomy. Discourses may thereforehave material effects, but this is an empirical question and needs to becorroborated, rather than assumed a priori.

In practical terms, the discursive pragmatist approach means that thelevels of the text, meaning and practice (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000b) areviewed as autonomous empirical domains. Thus, we primarily view inter-view material as a basis for understanding the structure and nature of howorganizational members talk about organizational phenomena. Observationdata have been viewed as primarily providing insight into organizationalpractices in use. Interview data have also been viewed as providing clues onmeanings and practices, while observational data have been viewed ascapable of providing clues on meanings and conventions of conversations.

Initially, the interview data suggested that the two dominant discourseshad a similar, if not an equal, impact on practice and meaning. However, itwas quite clear over time, and from the observational data, that this was not the case. In many ways, the method has made it possible to analyze theidentified discourses in an unusually nuanced and complex way. A moremicro-oriented approach would have been content to identify the discoursesand their effects in conversation, while more muscular assumptions aboutthe agency inherent in discourse, would either assume too much or too littleabout the impact of the Autonomy discourse.

The case

Magnum Consulting is fast-growing and has over 30,000 employees world-wide. It works with management and information-technology (IT) con-sultancy. It caters to all consultancy market niches, but claims to beparticularly strong at implementation. Magnum clearly qualifies as a knowl-edge-intensive company – virtually all consultants have an academic degree,some services may be standardized but are generally quite complex, product




and personnel development are deemed critical activities and attract a rela-tively high proportion of resources.

Hierarchy is highly visible and pronounced at Magnum. Althoughthere are claims that the grips of the hierarchy tend to loosen as oneadvances, sheer organizational demographics – those under 30 years oldconstitute roughly 70 percent of the work-force – make clear that a strongmajority of organizational members face hierarchical constraints in theirwork. The firm is a career company, which means that initial advancementis fast and dramatic for the individual. There are four basic levels: analyst,consultant, manager and partner. Employees are expected to advance withinfixed time frames and only a limited number will eventually become partners.Junior people carefully monitor their position in the company’s promotion/differentiation system. Hierarchy is assumed to capture very well competenceand experience. It is seen as a way to legitimately fine tune from above aswell as below. Work is standardized or regulated in a variety of ways atMagnum: unified package of methods, standardized and selective recruit-ment, continuous training and development, formalized systems for evalu-ation and appraisal and elaborate systems for knowledge management.

The firm thus, in many respects, appears somewhat different from theidealized conception of the contemporary, progressive, post-bureaucraticfirm that may be most attractive for younger people. Magnum is hierarchicaland has systems, structures and procedures for almost everything, resemblingthe traditional bureaucracy more than a flat, informal, adhocratic and entre-preneurial organization. It does, however, offer a lot of positive things for itsemployees: high and increasing wages, rapid promotion possibilities, a lot oftraining and development, international work, quite effective work practices,a bright and ambitious workforce and an elitist image and self-confirmationthat is good for the self-esteem of those that are employed at, and getpromoted within, the organization. In polls, Magnum is broadly viewed asan attractive employer among students in business and engineering in thecountry.

Magnum is not a workplace that puts a premium on dissent. On thecontrary, the firm invests a lot of energy in making organizational memberscompliant. Systems, procedures around management control, detailed HRMpractices in combination with a lot of rewards and the demographics of thefirm population all contain ‘resistance-resisting’ elements. The prospects ofpromotion, better work conditions and increasingly higher levels of materialrewards hierarchically controlled and contingent upon carefully monitoredperformances mean the presence of ‘conventional’ forms of power, but thiscannot be understood simply as naked power in operation. We identify three




important aspects of compliance at Magnum: subordination, identificationand conformity.

Magnum recruits young and inexperienced people that almost bydefault subordinate themselves to the systems and structures of the workmethodology. The initial uncertainty that is so keenly felt by newcomersfurther fuels subordination and compliance, which are in turn facilitated bythe sheer intensity of the symbolic saturation of the perceived ‘strong’ corpor-ate culture. In particular, the way hierarchy is over-loaded with meaning –expressing all at once the power structure, competence levels and theexpected career path – underscores the importance of subordination andobedience. Hierarchical differences are accepted, even celebrated, becausethey are believed to express differences in competence, rather than raw powerdifferences.

The hierarchy constructs career advancement as self-evident andnatural, thus subtly suggesting that all members – even newcomers – should take on the partner’s point of view; this converts the equivocality ofhierarchy into a particularly effective device for achieving subordination.Hierarchy is a ladder for climbing, as well as a vehicle for expressing anddeveloping competence, making it less cumbersome as a source of subordi-nation and constraints. Interestingly, in this case hierarchical differentiationappears to perpetuate motivation and reinforce career aspirations, ratherthan cause alienation (see Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007; Grey, 1994;Kärreman & Alvesson, 2004). Motivation is further fueled by the careerpaths that provide templates for evaluation, that is, whether the subordinateis on his or her way towards his or her ideal self or if he or she ‘needsimprovement’, which is the euphemism used at Magnum for failure to liveup to expectations. The elaborate character of hierarchical differences, andthe career paths thus constructed, maintains the motivation over time. Eachhierarchical step is only a partial success, which always will be transformedinto new aspirations and identity deficits, until one becomes a partner orexits the firm.

Identification appears to happen fast, with little or no obvious resist-ance. This is partly an effect of Magnum’s HRM practices. The prospectiveemployee is encouraged to define him- or herself as a person that has chosenthis kind of work. The definition consequently produces a standard to whichthe subject becomes committed. This type of recruitment practice is knownas cultural matching (Bergström, 1998), however at Magnum, culturalmatching extends beyond recruitment practices. Almost all HRM practicesinclude aspects of cultural engineering more or less geared towards organiz-ational members’ self-definitions. Evaluations, both formal and informal,include aspects of conduct.




Identification is also partly explained by the perceived attractiveness of the organizational identity and image (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994), which is of course contingent upon material rewards associatedwith employment and promotion. Part of the attractiveness lies in the factthat the elite status of membership is emphasized in most internal contexts.The idea of an elite is justified and reinforced through upmarket recruitment,continuous competence development, high wages and good career prospects(either within or outside the company):

Magnum Consulting invariably plugs the greatness of MagnumConsulting. We are doing well. We are profitable, salaries are good . . .They work for a company with a good reputation. It feels a bit poshto work for Magnum Consulting.

(Bert, manager, staff position)

Social identities and processes of identification provide, among other things,comfort and security. Social identity creates a bond between the individualand the collective. Consultants who typically have their workplace at aclient’s facilities often face constraints in their identity work. Specifically, theyoften have to cope with not really being affiliated to the particular place atwhich they work and thus prevented from evoking their social identity infull. Client personnel may also be skeptical. Hence, occasions for identifi-cation become scarce and possibly more intense.

The main source for identity work at Magnum is not only communalbut also collective. Comments on organizational and social identity atMagnum uniformly downplay individuality, spontaneity and creativity.Instead, there is a strong emphasis on the collective, on cooperation andconformity. As a consequence, the individual is typically viewed as ratherinsignificant, at least in terms of organizational resources. The team isstressed and the individual, particularly at lower levels, is viewed as perfectlyexchangeable and replaceable; a part of the efforts to produce an effectiveorganizational machinery through investments in structures, procedures andarrangements constraining and supporting employees and reducing relianceon unique skills. This viewpoint may be common in organizations, but inthis study people emphasized it as typical for this firm and as a source ofnegative surprise. The conformity and homogeneity is widely observed andpart of the image of the firm. As such it underscores the competent andreliable aspects of the organization. It also portrays the firm as dull andlacking in both creativity and innovation capacity.

On the other hand, membership at Magnum represents status and self-esteem. Collective belongingness is important as a marker of difference (seeKondo, 1990). The conformist pressures at work at Magnum are mainly




motivated by concerns for reliability, predictability and the effective use ofhuman resources. Magnum workers work in an environment that encour-ages social distance, emotional control and calculative rationality. As notedabove, they tend to believe that they are a chosen elite and belong to a collec-tive of special individuals. This construction of a ‘we’ is fairly minimalistic,but is still a resource that makes the corporate machinery run smoothly.People do not stand out, at least not until they reach more senior positions.This is related to demographics and career routes: people typically enterdirectly after university in large numbers. They have no other significantwork experiences and tend to be adaptable and to conform.

And yet, a lot of effort is invested in constructing compliance atMagnum precisely because organizational members are not easily controlled.After all, much work is about making judgment calls in ambiguous situationsand, hence, employees exercise significant degrees of discretion andautonomy. The workforce at Magnum is not typically deprived of choice.On the contrary, they are empowered individuals with both attractiveoptions – within and outside the firm – and robust resources that can bemobilized to help them get their way.

Analysis: ‘Resistance is futile’

Although there are many attractive aspects of employment at Magnum – highpay, rapid promotion, status – there are nevertheless grounds for concernsamongst Magnum personnel, at least according to the views expressed by alarge number of our informants. Consider, for example, the followinginterview excerpts:

You tend to feel controlled during the first years, both in terms of tasksand procedures. When you have completed one project, often you justare picked up by whatever project needs manpower. If you can’t tellpeople why a project suits their competences, you just staff thembecause you need whomever; it will in the long run affect ambition andmotivation. We have been extremely biased towards delivery on time,so we never really take time to see if we can find projects that suit theparticular competences and ambitions of individuals. It’s more like ‘wehave a vacancy here and you are available’.

(Maria, senior manager)

There is a tradition at Magnum to regard individuals as perfectlyexchangeable. If you have a project that lacks a resource, and there is




a resource available, you move the available resource to the project,and you are expected to work there. If you don’t want to, or if you donot quite have the qualifications, well, strong project management issupposed to take care of that. For me personally, that has meant thatI have ended up working on projects I explicitly announced that I didn’twant to work on, because they were neither dealing with my area ofexpertise, nor my preferred branch of industry.

(John, consultant)

(Q: what do you think is expected from you by clients?)

That I, as a consultant, have answers to all questions. That’s my experi-ence, so far. That I am the expert I have been sold as. That I quicklycan build confidence in my capabilities. To deliver, to always bearound. Always. You are an around-the-clock slave, that you are notexpected to have a life outside work.

(Eve, junior consultant)

Despite these complaints, there is not much manifested resistance.Magnum employees work hard and comply. Most self-constructions involvea hardworking, loyal subject, characterized by circumscribed negativity.Ambivalence is more pronounced than resistance.

Why are organizational members complying? We identify and workwith five discourses that appear to shed light on this question. The subjectsconstruct their work situation and themselves in a net of ‘pro-business’ or‘work-focused’ discursive formations where the following elements aresalient:

• Discourse of consultancy work and the consultancy business circlingaround ambition, delivery and hard work.

• Discourse of competence and development.• Discourse of career, promotion and instrumentalism.

The first refers to constructions of the nature of the consultancybusiness (where client-orientation is often a strong disciplinary element;Anderson-Gough et al., 2000; Deetz, 1995), the second to a ‘natural’ wantto develop, become ‘good enough’ and then improve even more, the thirdrefers to instrumental interests. This is, of course, tightly connected tomaterial rewards, structures and practices being in place in order to detectdeviations from behaviors in tune with these discourses, but there is a strong element of ‘naturalization’ of the consultancy world in general and in




the firm in particular having a strong ‘culture of delivery’. All these discourses are salient in the interview statements of most employees. Theycall for a compliant, receptive subject refraining from questions, doubt andresistance within areas where the discourses prescribe the appropriate formof subjectivity.

There are also, however, discourses constructing the work situationquite differently and in these the individual is – or should be – in control,and not subordinated to, or caught by, the business/work-orienteddiscourses. These circle around:

• Discourse of balance of life and work – these express concerns aboutthe dangers of working too much and also the appreciation of leisure.

• Discourse of discretion and autonomy issues – mobilizing the subjectas an agent capable of setting limits and taking control over one’s life.

These two discourses can be seen as potentially contradictory andconflicting in relation to organizational control and the first three discourses.They both put demands on subjects, presenting two versions of normaliz-ation, both of which exercise power, thus providing some incentive to resistmanagerial and professional pressures. It is clear that the studied subjects feellike deviants if they do not perform according to the norms, musts andconventions of either the consultancy industry in general or Magnum inparticular. On the other hand, they appear as ‘corporate slaves’ or ‘culturaldopes’ when they totally subordinate themselves to a work life that takes theupper hand, with very little autonomy and ability to let private life needs andwants govern their work. Rather than relate this to the concept of hegemonyin a conventional way – where there is a form of consent, compromise orcultural uniformity – one could talk about two ‘hegemonies’. There is atension between the two sets of discourses and while some parts of thebusiness and occupational elite groups may circle around ‘hegemony 1’ (thefirst set of discourses above), contemporary society as a whole, including avariety of political, union, mass media, health (anti-stress), equal opportunityand consumption-stimulating institutions (encouraging hedonism andconsumption-driven leisure), shows strong tendencies of symbolic domi-nation and balanced consent in line with ‘hegemony 2’ (i.e. the second set).Pluralism here leads to tensions not easily incorporated in a holistic conceptof hegemony based on symbolic domination or adjustment to what is seento be realistic.

We will not go into the complexities of the relationships betweenhegemony and discourses, between practices, and between discourses and




practices. Instead we want to emphasize how major aspects of the worksituation and organizational experiences can be seen as a struggle betweenthe Discourse(s) of the Ambitious and Performance-hungry Consultant(summarizing the first three discourses) and the Discourse(s) of theAutonomous Subject Living a Good Life (summarizing the last two) – whichwe have labeled Ambition and Autonomy. Both sets of discourses portray apositive world with satisfying subject positions. In the best of both worlds,there is not really any contradiction or struggle. But, as we will see, it is diffi-cult for the people at Magnum to balance their positions. As a consequence,their identity work – salient in the life stage of most of the studied subjects– becomes strenuous and demanding.

Enacting counter-resistance

An illustrative example is Jake, a project manager, who frames hard work –perhaps under conditions that could be seen as exploitive – in a positive way:

It is impossible not to be carried away by the enthusiasm, the feelingthat this must simply be done, although we are only five when we oughtto be 10. You just go on, and to start back-pedaling in that situation,to say that I don’t want to do this, that’s just unthinkable.

(Jake, project manager)

In this statement he links a negative cause of hard work – serious under-staffing – to a positive experience – enthusiasm. Both contribute to apressure/want to work very hard. There is an indication that there is a fusionof driving forces – melting the negative with the positive. The negativebecomes buried under an aggregated discourse of ‘moving on’, not ‘back-pedaling’ or being ‘obstructive’. The key word, drowning potential critique,is ‘enthusiasm’. There is an element of seduction and lack of independencein this ‘enthusiasm’: it encapsulates tendencies toward doubts, criticism andresistance, either by overriding them or by introducing ambiguity, making itimpossible for consultants to voice strongly felt feelings and ideas and, ulti-mately, to act upon them. The Ambition discourse is lurking here, in par-ticular the version of the nature of the consultancy business and the meaningof being a consultant. For a person of the ‘true grit’, it is ‘unthinkable’ toraise objections or refuse to participate. The idea of the team as a strongdisciplinary mechanism is part of this picture (Barker, 1993).

But this is, to some extent, situational. Outside the specific work situ-ations where working extremely hard and being guided by performance and




delivery ideals dominates, elements of doubt creep in. The Autonomydiscourse offers an alternative position:

Obviously, I have been working incredibly hard. I have no spare time.It’s funny, because I always tell myself that I must stop doing that, thatI must do other things than work. For some reason, those things justslip your mind when you are in the thick of the work. It’s a loyalty thatis a bit odd. You sit by yourself and think ‘This is it, I have to spendtime on my own’, but then you end up totally dedicated to some task,doing 80 hour weeks.

(Jake)

The theme here focuses on working too much and sacrificing. Tempor-ary decisions to change the situation mark the weakness of the sovereignsubject in favor of the power of the organizational situation and theAmbition discourse, which holds a stronger grip. Put differently, thediscourse constructing the scene is loaded with more agency than thediscourse that constructs the agent (see Burke, 1969). Jake is not very originalin a Magnum context: organizational members tend to construct the workcontext as big and powerful, and themselves as small and powerless. It ishard to rebel against what is perceived as normal and natural in thework/organizational context.

Although informants often claim that they work too much, voicing ininterview situations that they got a raw deal, they do not seem to be able topreserve and act on this conviction in the work context. In the organizationalsetting, another subjectivity is called for and is dutifully enacted: the loyaland hardworking professional company person that keeps on going regard-less of sacrifices made, reflecting the strong grip of the normalization effectsof the Ambition discourse. When talking to researchers (= us), informantsdisplay reflexivity and insight: they work too much and they most likely havebeen short-changed; when working, other aspects of reality are more import-ant, and other self-definitions become more prevalent. The Autonomydiscourse thus appears to be invoked, infrequently and with ambivalence,outside work while the Ambition discourse is present in a work context (i.e.most of the waking time for a person like Jake) – where both are constructedand perceived as irresistible.

Our second example illustrates how self-definitions that rationalizehard work and long hours are quickly adopted, and also encouraged:

I worked a lot on weekends when I started to work here. I think that’snatural. Everybody at Magnum wants to demonstrate their worth. Weare often very driven, so you automatically work during weekendswhen you are a freshman, and when there is a need. My reason for




working weekends was that I wanted to reach a level of understand-ing and competence that felt comfortable. And I think that most want to reach that level as soon as possible. Which is good for thecompany, because then you have self-confidence, and others are con-fident about you.

(Bo, junior consultant)

Here consent thinking is salient and the substantial amount of workdone is viewed as an outcome of a) the natural orientations and drive of thepeople employed and b) the natural want to arrive as quickly as possible ata level of competence that is seen as comfortable. Nevertheless, the inter-viewee expresses fairly strong feelings about working too much:

You must know your limitations. You must say stop sometimes. That’ssomething I’ve learned during my first 18 months. I have always beendoing lots of things simultaneously. But when you are at the university,you can do that and still feel that you have a life, because you choose all the time. It doesn’t work that way in business. That insightis frustrating. Because you want to work much, to prove yourself. Butyou also must take care of your body.

(Bo)

Bo here embraces a ‘balanced life’ version of the Autonomy discourse.Here we find a mix, a moving back and forth between expressed frustrationand critique, followed by an immediate countering of this through thenaturalization of things in this kind of business and by emphasizing his ownagency and shortcomings. There is no explicit critique of the firm or anyimplications for resistance. Instead, there is the idea that the very nature ofthe consultancy business is like this, as if natural law operates. The key pointseems to be that people must develop an ability to realize their own limi-tations and that this should, optimally, lead to saying ‘stop’. However, thisisn’t happening. Saying stop to the firm or a manager does not really enterthe picture. Bo constructs himself as trapped between two discourses: thehardworking way in which things function in this business and the balancedlife discourse voiced by his body.

Despite that long working hours take the upper hand in consulting life,therefore opening one up to risks of burnout and physical toll, the inter-viewee also views this from a partly positive perspective:

On the other hand, this is positive because it forces you to think aboutthe future. How many hours do I want to work? How much spare timedo I want? What do I want to do with my spare time? What do I wantto do when I am working? It is both positive and negative . . . it’s




positive because when you reach a conclusion . . . I feel that I havereached one now, the last couple of months. It takes a while for youto understand what to do. I appreciate my spare time much more now,much more than when I was at the university. Back then, all my timewas spare time. Even if you had classes you could usually choose toattend or not. My life has changed from being all spare time to no sparetime at all.

(Bo)

He asserts that the positive thing about working extreme amounts is that it stimulates him to think through situational and existential issues. Thetime when one is not working is limited but much more appreciated.Somewhat ironically, the current work life has the positive value that one hasa greater appreciation for former ways of life and life outside work. Theinterviewee invokes a discourse that counter-acts the elements of a discourseof resistance. What appears to happen here is that the discourse of Autonomy– the discourse of resistance to external pressures (and the discourse ofAmbition) – is more or less actively resisted. In other words, the discourseof Autonomy (and life–work balance) becomes targeted for resistance. Asdiscussed above, we suggest that this phenomenon can be understood ascounter-resistance. This is part of a general pattern, as illustrated by our thirdcase subject:

I decide when to go home. At the moment, there are suggestions fordeveloping alternative career steps. Magnum is certainly a careercompany. But everybody does not develop at the same speed. But theculture tells you that you have to. It’s hard. You can’t leave at 5. Youjust can’t. My manager, Helena, is a real role model. She is great. Shecan walk on water. She sees immediately if you have too much to do,and she talks to you for 10 minutes, and then you feel much better.The only bad thing is that she doesn’t go home. She works long hourstoo. I don’t suggest that Magnum wears people out, I can work less ifI want to. Perhaps I don’t need to become a manager as fast as possible.Perhaps I don’t need to work long hours.

(Eve, junior consultant)

Again we find a dance between, on the one hand, ‘how it is’ and ‘musts’– partly beyond human control and agency – and, on the other, discretionand active choice, which implies that the individual has responsibility but isnot really capable of full (or even moderate) agency. Eve starts with a positiveaccount where she decides that the firm is for people that want to developand there is no need for everybody to run at equal speed. But then theopposite enters her account – it is inherent in the corporate culture to do




exactly that. The interviewee can’t set the line for leaving the workplace. Akind of ‘compromise’ enters temporarily: Helena – the good role model.Although she is not so good at going home on time. So it may not be possibleafter all – even the heroine does not succeed. On the other hand, the firmdoes not really wear out the employees. It is possible to slow down the pacesomewhat. Perhaps Eve in a sense ‘deconstructs’ and thus undermines theimpulse to resist.

Eve’s story starts by emphasizing her autonomy and then makes roomfor some variety in corporate normalization. But this is followed by closure:the nature of the world, or at least consultancy Magnum-style, ‘tells youwhat you have to do’. Eve’s statements that she decides when she goes homebut that ‘you can’t leave at 5’ illustrate a temporary and weak ‘autonomoussubject’ position and more frequently and strongly presents ‘this is what youdo in this business’. Compared to Jake and Bo, Eve is somewhat less inclinedto emphasize that this is the very nature of consultancy work and sees thelong work hours less as a natural law of consultancy and more as a matterof organizational constructions (‘the culture’) that could possibly be openedup for alternative options. But these openings are blocked and the routes areperhaps very difficult to embark on. It seems as if not even the ‘real rolemodel’ has done so.

As the three cases illustrate, people in the firm sometimes constructtheir situation in a way that almost seems bound to trigger resistance. Thepresence of balance, autonomy and freedom discourses, and the capacity toexercise agency, are obvious resources to draw upon in articulating andenacting resistance. The Ambition discourses seem to imply pain, frustrationand lack of discretion – a subtext of slavery to a particular regime or aspecific mode of being. This would trigger a critical stance. The position-taking here is so strong that it seems to be at odds with any notion of ideo-logical uniformity or compromise-based consensus. People hint at autonomyand balance as alternative and more favorable positions, but they then steeraway from these positions. There is no clear agency suggesting resistance.They take a ‘this is not me-position’, but there is no articulation of a ‘positive’subject or identity position that would inform carrying through an in-clination to resist. Rather, there is a strong but fleeting moment that hints atresistance, which is then resisted. This is a bit different from the exitresponse, which is a quite different way of coping with a frustrating situationwithout raising voice or protest. In Kunda’s study (1992) many peopleexpressed strongly negative views about work, but this led to the responseof ‘quitting in a few years time’, that is, imagining exit. There is a containedand channeled form of ‘adaptive resistance’ located in the imagined careertrajectory. This differs from the resistance to resistance we have identified inour study, which marginalizes the exit option.




Of course, we here carve out a domain of the work experiences andthe discourses at play in the firm. One can also look at long-term prospectsand the economic and instrumental side of the employment situation andconsider the forms of ‘naked power’ (including the risk of protests leadingto negative appraisals and bad ranking). What is seen as poor performanceleads to ‘out’ rather than ‘up’ in the firm. These are important contextualdimensions to be borne in mind, which organizational control typically spansbroadly (Kärreman & Alvesson, 2004). However, this does not make it fruit-less to focus on the selected aspects of the interplay of power/resistance.

Ambiguous resistance: Ghosting and Topgunconsulting.com

In general, the workers at Magnum are strongly biased towards compliancerather than resistance. This is vividly illustrated by the phenomenon ofghosting. At Magnum ghosting refers to a widely used practice of faking timereports. In particular, this means that organizational members are more orless ordered to underreport overtime. The reason is simple: the time reportedcontrols the most important ratio/measure for the evaluation of the project– the project margin. The higher the amount of reported hours, the lowerthe margin. But this is just an internal ratio. Most projects are sold based ona fixed price and exactly how much the revenue will amount to is known.Since there is no overtime compensation, they also know how much theexpenses will amount to. The actual margin is thus not affected by the timereporting, but a project manager appears much more competent if theconsultants she or he is heading do not report more than eight hours a day.It appears as if fewer resources have been needed to accomplish a particularresult.

Ghosting is generally perceived as a side effect of the evaluationsystems. People want to look good and effective because it increases thechance of getting good evaluations. The project managers want a highmargin, because the projects are evaluated based on their achieved margin:

Everybody is ghosting. Everybody. And everybody will be continuinguntil they get a good reason to stop. I will be continuing if they [theproject managers] ask me to. And they will because their evaluationsdepend on the margin, which in its turn depends on the hours. I don’tmind. I don’t give a damn.

(Heidi, consultant)




‘Ghosting’ is acknowledged as a common practice to the extent that it,at least for some participants, seems to be routine. But ‘ghosting’ is also apractice that is highly problematic, since it involves lying and faking. Themoral aspect is highlighted in an incident reported to us at an internalmeeting where a consultant described a situation where he refused to fakethe numbers and insisted on working the reported hours. His manager’sreaction, and the audience reaction at the meeting, is telling. The managergave him a very poor evaluation. The audience, for their part, was stunned.Some members of the audience were bewildered that he still was at the firm:you simply don’t get stronger hints of what is expected from you. Mostclaimed that he got his priorities completely wrong. He should have solvedthe dilemma – if he perceived it as such – by reporting the actual hours hewas demanded to work, instead of working the required reported hours.People thought that he was stupid or stubborn, rather than having integrityor having done the right thing. When a (very rare) example of resisting entersthe picture, obedience is the norm expressed by employees commenting uponit. While there are fragments of resistance to corporate and professionaldiscourse creating the compliant Ambition-constituted subject, the resistanceto this resistance is more systematic and enduring.

Although compliance dominates the picture at Magnum, there is onesystemic and widespread channel for voicing grievances and critique. Thechannel is a website that hosts cartoons that satirize the life as a consultantin general and at Magnum in particular; a forum where people can engagein anonymous discussion, a news service dedicated to the internal life atMagnum together with links to similar websites.

The long work hours and the routinized nature of human interaction,in particular superior–subordinate interaction at Magnum – are frequentthemes of the cartoons. Another recurrent theme is the risk of unemploy-ment, often hinting that the stated meritocracy is a myth. The cartoons alsotarget rigid rules and procedures and, not surprisingly, the partners of thefirm, in particular their perceived greed.

We asked one of our informants to describe how the website wasperceived among organization members. Here is his story about the site(which we have labeled Topgunconsulting.com):

There was a lot of talk about the cartoons at that time and many ofus thought they were brilliant. It was close to the humor of ScottAdams’ Dilbert, but targeted at the employees of Magnum with a lotof internal jokes. I do not know how often people visited the site(myself, I just visited it once or twice), but now and then emails withrelevant, up-to-date cartoons circulated, especially close to significant




events such as the IPO, the new CEO, the renaming of the firm, etc.The website might have had its ‘golden days’ which old posting datesand one of the postings on the website indicate.

The official policy from the Partners was to more or less ignore it, sinceit was an external homepage, designed and maintained by employeesin their spare time. Unofficially on the other hand, I knew a fewPartners who thought it was a good laugh and mirrored the sometimesabsurd reality in the firm pretty well. We must remember, despite thehierarchy, that the Partners are also part of the system. They have donethe same career as everyone else, struggled with their Managers andPartners, absurd policies, etc. And they are still managed tightly bytheir superiors. The hierarchy never ends at Magnum. There is alwayssomeone you are accountable to. Therefore, I think many of themthought the cartoons were amusing, to the point and pretty harmless.

(Marvin, project manager)

The cartoons, and the website as a whole, can be interpreted as anexemplary case study of bureaucratic and organizational resistance. In thissense, it is an example of a counter-institutional website (Gossett & Kilker,2006). It ridicules management, satirizes partners and subverts strange andincomprehensible corporate practices. It gives a voice to the (relatively)powerless, thus providing the marginalized with a forum where they canspeak up. It provides a medium where uncertainties, insecurities and fear are not only recognized, but also framed in a way that has an auth-entic feel and that, according to our informants, has resonance with commonperceptions.

However, Topgunconsulting.com is highly ambiguous as an exercise inresistance. First, Magnum is a management consulting firm. The premises ofthe firm are that managers are important and management is a social good.Thus, the cartoons not only question and subvert a powerful social group;they question and subvert the existence of the firm. Taken seriously, thecartoons are not able to rationalize consultants’ suffering or lead to anysuggestions to reform the firm. They can only lead to exit from it.

Second, the cartoons may actually be interpreted as embracingcorporate ideology, rather than resisting it. For example, Magnum isperceived as having a strong organizational culture. Magnum officials workhard to make that perception valid, almost over-saturating workplaces withslogans, messages, policies, clues and hints that paint a more or less coherentcorporate picture on how to feel, think and behave as a Magnum consultant.Occasionally, this picture breaks down. Topgunconsulting.com clearlyprovides a means and possibilities to voice discordant experiences. This does




not necessarily mean that they resist or reject the ideology of the company.On the contrary, the pay-off of some cartoons is that the company doesn’tlive up to its ideology – not because there is something wrong with theideology, but because people do not try hard enough. But even when thewebsite carries less pro-corporation and more subversive content, it maynevertheless subtly reinforce the web of corporate control. As Rosen (1988)points out, satirical play with corporate ideology may mitigate the ambi-guity of symbols and provide support for the production of consensusthrough social drama. Rather than undermining corporate ideology, thewebsite satire and humor may add emotional resonance to otherwise coldand sterile corporate commandments, suggesting coping strategies instead ofa radical questioning of the status quo.

What happens when compliance is a built-in feature of almost all socialinteraction and when even satire and parody sites appear to silently affirmthe status quo? In Hirschman’s (1970) terms, this results in a suppressingvoice and offers organizational members the choice between loyalty and exit.In this sense, resistance becomes a binary proposition: it is either off (loyalty)or on (exit). Resistance is always an option, but it is something that is diffi-cult to exercise within the organization. Consequently, as long as you alignyour destiny with the organization, you learn to resist resisting.

Conventional wisdom describes professional and other knowledgework as complex, non-routinized and inherently difficult to control;knowledge-intensive firms as inverted pyramids; knowledge workers asremarkably empowered individuals, almost autonomous agents. The knowl-edge worker appears to not only be able to resist managerial control – he orshe appears to have a relatively more powerful position. However, in the caseof Magnum, conventional wisdom is circumvented. As our analysis demon-strates, resistance as materialized is uncommon, weak, fragmented, ambiva-lent and ambiguous. Interviews and observations suggest that organizationalmembers ‘choose’ compliance over resistance and appear to do so willingly,despite the fact that in reflexive situations, such as interviews, they signalthat this may be at odds with their own self-interests.

Subordination, identification and conformity do not eliminate resist-ance, but they clearly shape the space available for acts of resistance. Sincesubordination, identification and conformity are built into the fabric ofalmost all forms of social interaction in organizations like Magnum (with anambitious HRM machinery that makes extensive scrutiny of work perform-ance and expressions of attitudes possible), organizational members cannotprotest single instances of perceived exploitation, because to do so alsomeans to question the social fabric of the organization. This understandingstrongly informs the satire site, the most visible form of resistance at




Magnum. The site satirizes and parodies life at Magnum, but not in a waythat compels organizational members to resist what are perceived asexploitation, greed and injustice. It rather provides commentary on unavoid-able facts of life for Magnum members. It perhaps offers a mechanism forletting off steam but, more importantly, it provides a non-authorized, yetauthoritative, portrait of what is normal and expected. Thus, it complies inits detailing and elaborating of work-life at Magnum. It may focus on theabsurdities of consultancy work but, ironically, this appears to give everydaywork experiences at Magnum a more full and human quality. At the end ofthe day, it normalizes and counter-resists.

Conclusion

This article has carefully analyzed one example of power and resistance inan organizational setting that in many ways is atypical, but still says some-thing about important, and perhaps increasingly significant, aspects ofworking life and the economy. Beyond the specifics of the case, it points toa broadly relevant aspect of resistance: power tends to trigger resistance(sometimes in a minimalistic form), but this impulse to resist also appearscontingent upon an anticipated exercise of power (prescribing an identity orsubject position or indicating a norm of how it should be). Once realized,this instance of power (‘power 2’) may provoke a second-level impulse toresist (‘resistance 2’, directed by power 2). First-level resistance thus normal-izes individuals into one or more social categories (such as gender, age, unionmembership) that, in turn, influence second-level or future resistance in subtle ways. For example, resistant actors may not want to appear overlyobtrusive, ‘fanatical’ or anti-corporate in some way as a show of displeasure.In short, this leads to a dialectic between power (1) leading to resistance,being triggered or closely connected to power (2) in operation, leading to anew resistance (2).

The case is not inconsistent with conventional ideas about hegemonyand the production of consent (e.g. Mumby, 1997), but we think the caseallows for other kinds of insights that show how the dynamics of resistanceand the neutralization of resistance work. Compared to most other studies,we approach this at very close range, where process aspects are illuminated.In our case, the (modest, infrequent and weak) inclinations to ‘resist’ theorganizational regime (and here we use the term resistance broadly, includ-ing a strong experience of ‘this is not reasonable, I will not accept this’) drawupon discourses of autonomy and life balance. Here we find not onlyelements of resistance against consultancy discourses on client-orientation,performance and career, but also a normalization effect. The life balance –




celebrating well-being and life outside work – and autonomy discoursesinvoke a subject not inclined to accept the imperatives of the consultancybusiness, competence development and careerism. This, however, normalizesanother form of subjectivity: to have control over work, to maintain a lifeoutside work and not be sucked into Ambition and organizational demands.The balance discourse can, of course, also be seen as an expression of power.Ideas on and norms of balance and leisure are supported by political andother elites emphasizing the normal work week, health, consumption, leisureand hedonism as important regulatory ideals. The subjects studied can beseen to be dissenting from this form of hegemony (above referred ashegemony 2). To reduce the Autonomy discourse to pure resistance wouldbe to deny the disciplinary and normalizing effects of various institutionsprescribing how subjects should be in respects other than strong work andcareer orientations as regulated by corporate management (hegemony 1).

Ironically, these resistance/normalization discourses face resistance thatundermine and marginalize their effectiveness. As discussed above, we labelthis tendency to resist resistance ‘counter-resistance’. Counter-resistanceemerges through the play between the normalizing effects of the Autonomydiscourse and the resistance such normalization (‘nine-to-five work’) gener-ates. This resistance – in combination with the Ambition discourse(s) aroundengagement, commitment, the nature of consultancy business, the tendencyto be sucked in by corporate culture and follow the flow – can be seen aspower forces that undermine the impulse to resist the (in the firm/industry)dominant discourse. This impulse tends to fragment and lead to very little,if any, visible protest or action contingent upon a resistant subjectivity. Theplay between the power effects of the discourses of Ambition and Autonomy,and the forms of resistance they make possible, connects to the wider webof power forces (positional, formal power associated with organizationalhierarchy and control over material resources and ‘real’ work opportunities),thus feeding into the impulse to resist resistance. In the final analysis, the mixof carefully vetted, evaluated and self-defined individuals; the emphasis onshared norms and understandings mediated through structures andprocedures; the heavy emphasis on teams and group work; and the impulseto counter-resist, combine to create a context in which compliance is not onlydesirable: it is almost irresistible.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Professor Gail Fairhurst, Associate Editor, andthree anonymous Human Relations reviewers for their help in developing theauthors’ argument.




References

Ackroyd, S. & Thompson, P. Organizational misbehaviour. London: SAGE, 1999.Alvesson, M. Communication, power and organization. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter,

1996.Alvesson, M. Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2004.Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research:

Challenges, responses, consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 2000a,36, 134–56.

Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. Varieties of discourse. On the study of organizations throughdiscourse analysis. Human Relations, 2000b, 53, 1125–49.

Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. Interfaces of control. Technocratic and socio-ideologicalcontrol in a global management consultancy firm. Accounting, Organization & Society,2004, 29, 423–44.

Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. Unraveling HRM. Identity, ceremony and control in amanagement consultancy firm. Organization Science, 2007, 18, 711–23.

Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C. & Robson, K. In the name of the client: The service ethic intwo professional service firms. Human Relations, 2000, 53, 1151–73.

Ashforth, B. & Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 1989, 14, 20–39.

Ball, K. & Wilson, D. Power, control, and computer-based performance monitoring:Repertoires, resistance and subjectivities. Organization Studies, 2000, 21, 539–65.

Barker, J. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 1993, 38, 408–37.

Bergström, O. Att passa in [To fit]. Dissertation, BAS, Gothenburg, 1998.Burke, K. A grammar of motives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969.Burrell, G. Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 2: The contribution of

Michel Foucault. Organization Studies, 1988, 9, 221–35.Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Aldershot:

Gower, 1979.Carr, J.B. & Brower, R.S. Principled opportunism: Evidence from the organizational

middle. Public Administration Quarterly, 2000, 24, 109–38.Chan, A. Redirecting critique in postmodern organization studies: The perspective of

Foucault. Organization Studies, 2000, 21, 1059–75.Clegg, S. Frameworks of power. London: SAGE, 1989.Clegg, S., Hardy, C. & Nord, W. Some dare call it power. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. Nord

(Eds), Handbook of organization studies. London: SAGE, 1996, pp. 622–41.Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W., Heian, J.B. & Samuel, S. The calculated and the avowed:

Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six public accounting firms.Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998, 43, 293–327.

Deetz, S. Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive andresponsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995.

Deetz, S. Discursive formations, strategized subordination, and self-surveillance. In A.McKinley & K. Starkey (Eds), Foucault, management and organization theory. London:SAGE, 1998, pp.151–72.

Dutton, J., Dukerich, J. & Harquail, C.Organizational images and member identification.Administrative Science Quarterly, 1994, 39, 239–63.

Etzioni, A. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964.Fleming, P. & Spicer, A. Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity

and resistance. Organization, 2003, 10, 157–79.Fleming, P. & Spicer, A. Contesting the corporation: Struggle, power and resistance in

organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.




Foucault, M. Discipline and punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974.Foucault, M. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage, 1977.Foucault, M. Power/knowledge. Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977,

Ed. C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon, 1980.Ganesh, S., Zoller, H. & Cheney, G. Transforming resistance, broadening our boundaries:

Critical organizational communication meets globalization from below. Communi-cation Monographs, 2006, 72, 169–91.

Gossett, L. & Kilker, J. My job sucks: Examining counterinstitutional web sites as locationsfor organizational member voice, dissent, and resistance. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 2006, 20, 63–90.

Grey, C. Career as a project of the self and labour process discipline. Sociology, 1994, 28,479–97.

Hardy, C. Power and politics in organizations. In Managing strategic action. London:SAGE, 1994, pp. 220–37.

Hirschman, A. Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.Hoy, D.C. (Ed.). Foucault. Critical debates. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.Jermier, J., Knights, D. & Nord, W. (Eds). Resistance and power in organizations. London:

Routledge, 1994.Johnson, R. Post-hegemony? I don’t think so. Theory, Culture & Society, 2007, 24, 95–110.Journal of Management Studies. Special issue on Knowledge-intensive firms, 1993, 30(6).Kärreman, D. & Alvesson, M. Cages in tandem: Management control, social identity, and

identification in a knowledge-intensive firm. Organization, 2004, 11, 149–75.Kersten, A. Organizing for powerlessness: A critical perspective on psychodynamics and

dysfunctionality. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1998, 14, 452–67.Knights, D. & McCabe, D. ‘Are there no limits to authority?’ TQM and organizational

power. Organization Studies, 1999, 20, 197–224.Knights, D. & Vurdubakis, T. Foucault, power, resistance and all that. In J. Jermier,

D. Knights & W. Nord (Eds), Resistance and power in organizations. London:Routledge, 1994, pp. 167–98.

Knights, D. & Willmott, H. Power and subjectivity at work. Sociology, 1989, 23, 535–58.Kondo, D.K. Crafting selves: Power, gender and discourses of identity in a Japanese

workplace. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1990.Kosmala, K. & Herrbach, O. The ambivalence of professional identity: On cynicism and

jouissance in audit firms. Human Relations, 2006, 59, 1393–428.Kunda, G. Engineering culture. Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Phila-

delphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1992.Levy, D., Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. Critical approaches to strategic management. In

M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds), Studying management critically. London: SAGE,2003, pp. 92–109.

Lukes, S. Power: A radical view. New York: Macmillan, 1974.McClelland, D. & Burnham, D. Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review,

1976, pp. 117–26.Morris, T. & Empson, L. Organization and expertise: An exploration of knowledge bases

and the management of accounting and consulting firms. Accounting, Organizationsand Society, 1998, 23, 609–24.

Mumby, D. The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational communi-cation studies. Western Journal of Communication, 1997, 61, 343–75.

Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,1994, 5, 14–37.

Pfeffer, J. Understanding power in organizations. California Management Review, 1992,34, 29–50.

Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes andbehaviour. London: SAGE, 1987.




Prasad, P. & Prasad, A. Stretching the iron cage: The constitution and implication of routineworkplace resistance. Organization Science, 2000, 11, 387–403.

Rosen, M. You asked for it: Christmas at the bosses’ expenses. Journal of ManagementStudies, 1988, 25, 463–80.

Spender, J.-C. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. StrategicManagement Journal, 1996, 17, 45–62.

Starbuck, W. Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies,1992, 29, 713–40.

Thomas, R. & Davies, A. Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New Public Manage-ment and managerial identities in the UK public services. Organization Studies, 2005,26, 683–706.

Thompson, P. Brands, boundaries and bandwagons. A critical reflection on CriticalManagement Studies. In S. Fleetwood & S. Ackroyd (Eds), Critical realism in action inorganisation and management studies. London: Routledge, 2005, pp. 54–70.

Weedon, C. Feminist practice and post-structuralist theory. Chichester: Blackwell, 1987.Wilkins, A. & Ouchi, W. Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture and

organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 28, 468–81.

Dan Kärreman is Professor in Management and Organization Studiesat Copenhagen Business School. His research interests include criticalmanagement studies, knowledge work, identity in organizations, leader-ship, innovation and research methodology. His work has been publishedin Academy of Management Review, Human Relations, Journal of ManagementStudies, Organization, Organization Science and Organization Studies, amongothers. He is currently working on a book on theory development withMats Alvesson.[E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]]

Mats Alvesson is Professor of Business Administration at the Universityof Lund, Sweden. He is also affiliated with University of QueenslandBusiness School, Australia. His research interests include critical theory,gender, power, management of professional service (knowledge intensive)organizations, organizational culture and symbolism, qualitative methodsand philosophy of science. Recent books include The Oxford handbook ofcritical management studies (Oxford University Press, edited with ToddBridgman and Hugh Willmott); Understanding gender and organizations(SAGE, 2009, 2nd edition with Yvonne Billing); Reflexive methodology(SAGE, 2009, 2nd edition, with Kaj Skoldberg); Changing organizationalculture (Routledge, 2008, with Stefan Sveningsson); Knowledge work andknowledge-intensive firms (Oxford University Press, 2004); Postmodernismand social research (Open University Press, 2002); and Understandingorganizational culture (SAGE, 2002).[E-mail: [email protected]]




Documents

Dan Kärreman and Mats Alvesson