Lectura en Inglés - Seeing Witout Been Seen - Article

8/18/2019 Lectura en Inglés - Seeing Witout Been Seen - Article

1/24

"Seeing without Being Seen": Toward an Archaeology of Controlling ScienceAuthor(s): Claus Jacobs and Loizos HeracleousSource: International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 31, No. 3, OrganizationalDiscourse (Fall, 2001), pp. 113-135Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40397511 .

Accessed: 21/07/2013 18:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Studies

of Management &Organization.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 18:46:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=meshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40397511?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40397511?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes


2/24

Int.

tudies

fMgt.

Org.,

ol.

31,

no.

3,

Fall

2001,

pp.

113-135.

©

2001M.E.

Sharpe,

nc.All

rights

eserved.

ISSN

0020-8825 001

$9.50

+

0.00.

Claus

Jacobs and

Loizos Heracleous

Seeing

Without

eing

Seen

Toward n

Archaeology

f

Controlling

cience

Abstract:Whats

the

elationship

etweenurrent

erman

management

ccount-

ing echniques

referred

o

s

Controlling

in

German-speaking

reas),

Taylorism,

and

an

eighteenth-century

risondesign

by Jeremy

entham,

he

Panopticon?

Using Foucauldian archaeological pproach ombined ith genealogical

concerns,

e

argue

hat

anopticism

s a

disciplinary

nstrument

nd

as

an

orga-

nizingmetaphor

an

stillbe

discernedn current erman

management

ccount-

ing

oncepts

s

well

s

inone

of

ts

onceptual

ncestors,

aylorism.

ur

nalysis

constitutes

critical

eflectionf

the

mpacts

fpanopticism

s

an

underlying

metaphor

orpresent-day

erman

management

ccounting,specially

with e-

gard

to

the

successful mplementation

f management

ccounting

ools and

their

rganizational

onsequences.

Claus

Jacobss

Ph.D. candidatet the chool

f

Business

tudies,

rinityollege,

Dublin,

Dublin

2,

Ireland

Tel:

353-1-6082257;

fax:

353-1-6799503;

email:

[email protected]).

oizosHeracleous

s associate

rofessor

t he

epartment

fBusi-

ness

Policy, aculty

f Business

dministration,

ational

niversity

f

Singapore,

Singapore

17591

Tel:

5-8743142;

ax:

5-7795059;

mail:

[email protected]).

he

authors

ish o

hankhe

uest

ditors

f

his

ssue f

nternational

tudies

fManage-

ment

nd

Organization;

he

ournal

ditor,

rofessor

ean

oddewyn;

rofessor

.

Kappler,

r.

T.

Scheytt,

ndDr. M. Habersam

f

the nstitute

or

Organisation

nd

Learning,

niversity

f

nnsbruck;

nd wo

nonymous

eviewers

or heir

nsightful

and constructive

ommentsn

earlier rafts

f this

rticle. laus Jacobs

ratefully

acknowledgeshe inancialponsorshipfDeutscherkademischerustauschdienst,

which

llowed

is

participation

n

the ourth

nternational

onferencen Discourse

and

Organization

t

King'sCollege,

ondon.

oizos

Heracleous

ratefully

cknowl-

edges

esearch

unding

rom

he

aculty

f

Business

dministration,

ational

niver-

sity

f

Singapore.

113


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/24

114

JACOBS

IRELAND)

AND

HERACLEOUS

(SINGAPORE)

ThePanopticons a machine or issociatinghe ee/beingeendyad: n the

périphérie

ing,

ne s

totally

een,

withoutver

eeing;

n he entral

ower,

ne

sees

verything

ithout

ver

eing

een.

Michel

oucault,

iscipline

ndPunish

1977c,

.

202)

Using

Foucauldian

rchaeological

pproach

ombined

with

enealogical

on-

cerns,

we

propose

n

this rticle hat

eremy

entham's

anopticon,

prison

e-

signed

o

observe

he

nmates

n a

way

n

which

hey

reunable

o ee the

guards,

can stillbe discerned

n current

erman

managementccountingoncepts

nd

their

pplication

o

other

rganizational

omains.Foucault

1977c)

used the

Panopticon etaphor

o

explain

he

evelopment

f

disciplinaryractices

uch s

hierarchicalbservationnd

normalizing

udgment

the

dentificationnd sanc-

tioning

f deviations rom

given

norm)

n different

nstitutionsf

society.

he

Panopticon

s

a

highly

fficient

nstrumentor

ontrolling

nd

nfluencing

ndi-

vidual

ehavior,

s the

ssumption

f

being

bserveds often ufficient

o nduce

the

xpected

ehavior.n

other

ords,

he

anopticon rinciple

reates

elf-disci-

pline,

hat

s,

the bserved

erson

xercises ehavioral elf-control

without

ec-

essarilynternalizing

he

norms f the

bserver).

The term

Controlling

s

a

foreign

ord

n German: he

apitalized nglish

term asbeenused ince he1950s nGerman-speakingreas odenotemanage-

ment

ccounting

echniques

hat re

firmly

ooted

n a traditional

heory

f

costs

and

cost

ccounting

echniques.1

Controlling

hould

herefore

ot

e

identified

with

theory

f

controlnd

monitoring

n an

Anglo-Saxon

radition.

ainstream

proponents

f

Controlling

iew

managementccounting

ssentially

s a

practice

aimed

t

rendering

isible nd

measuring

ndividual

s

well s

organizational

er-

formance,

nd

thus

ropose

n

efficient

ontrol

nd

managementystem

s

a

con-

tributing

actor o

a

company's

bility

o

change

nd

nnovate

Horvàth,

996;

Küpper,

995; Weber,

995).

We

propose

hat

ome scholars

nalyzing

ontrol-

ling

ften

o

not

ecognize

hat

heir

uggestions

mplicitly

ontribute

oward

he

operationalizationfpanopticismndthe reation f anorganizationalrison,n

a

metaphorical

ense,

hereby

ronically

tifling

he

very

apability

or

rganiza-

tional

hange

nd

nnovationhat

hey

re

aiming

o enhance.

Drawing

rom

oucault's

1977c;

1997)

work

nd

Hopwood's

1987)

nterpre-

tation f he

rchaeological

pproach,

e

aim

o

examine

he

historical

onditions

of German

ccounting

oncepts

Controlling

cience ),

hat

s,

to

identify

he

historical

ancestors f

such

oncepts.

oing

so

helps

o fulfillhe

genealogical

aim

of

dentifying

ow he

ominant,

nitary,

nd

otalizing

iscourse

f

Control-

ling

cience

roduces

ts wn

truth

ffectshat re

bound

p

with

ower

iffer-

entials.

ighlighting

his

rocess

llows

us to

critically

valuate

ts ffects

nd s

thefirsttep owardnlightenedction.Weproceednthree

rchaeological

o-

ments:

irst,

we

examine

he

onceptual

oundations

f

Controlling

cience

s

exhibited

ykey

uthors

n

his rea.

econd,

we

dentify

unctional

imilaritiesf




4/24

SEEING

WITHOUT BEING SEEN 115

these onceptions ith aylor's cientific anagement,hown obe a conceptual

ancestor

f

Controlling

cience.

Third,

we

show

that

anopticism

s

a

common

unifying

etaphor

or

oth

Taylorism

nd

Controlling

cience.

n

the

final ec-

tion,

we discuss n more

etail he

ffects

f

panopticism

n

Controlling

cience.

We

propose

hat

ontrolling

cientists

ay

e somewhat

yopic

othe

histori-

cal

foundations

f

the

oncepts

hey nconditionally

spouse.

t

might

husbe

helpful

o raise

he

wareness

f the

discourse-restricting

ffects

f

designed

nd

implemented

anagementccounting

oncepts.

s

Argyris

1994a,

1994b)

tates,

naivelymplemented

anagementccountingystems

ill ead

to

defensiveou-

tines

fthe

gents

o

that

o

valid

nformation

an be

gathered

rom

he ccount-

ing

ystem;

ltimatelyeading

owider

rganizational

ndbehavioral

ysfunctions.2

For

both

heorists

nd

practitioners

esigning,mplementing,

nd

running

man-

agement

ccountingystem,

hefact hat he

ystemmay

have

unintended

nd

surreptitious

ffects

n

action

hrough

ts

assumptions

ased on

panoptic rin-

ciples

has

to be

made

xplicit

nd

critically

valuated.

Given

that

metaphors

an

illuminate idden

spects

f

the

domain

hey

re

applied

o

Lakoff

nd

Johnson,

980),

we

suggest

hat

yusing

he

metaphor

f

the

anopticon

o

explore

he ancestors

f

managementccounting

oncepts

ts

surreptitious

ffects

an

be

identified.

he

archaeological

econstructionf

Con-

trollingciencentermsfthe anopticon rinciplentroduceshistoricaldepth

of

focus

hat

nables

oth heorists

nd

practitioners

o

gain

deeper

nderstand-

ing

of

the urrent

perations

nd

organizational

onsequences

fcontrol

ystems

through

more

laborate

nderstanding

f

their istorical

ntecedents.

The

archaeological

pproach

nd

genealogical

oncerns

The

archaeological

pproach

[Archaeology's]roblem

s to

define iscourses

ntheir

pecificity;

o how

n

whatway he et f uleshatheyutnto perations rreducibleo ny ther;

tofollow

hem

he

whole

ength

ftheir

xterior

idges.

..

It

defines

ypes

f

rules

or iscursive

ractices

hat

un

hrough

ndividual

euvres,

ometimes

govern

hem

ntirely,

nd

dominate

hem

o

such

n extent

hat

othing

ludes

them.

Foucault,

997,

.

139)

For

Foucault,

he

rchaeological

pproach

ims

o

analyze

iscourses

hrough

n

identification

f

the

verriding

ules

hat tructure

nd

determine

hem. oucault

has

far

rom

rovided

clear

definition

f

discourse,

owever.

t east ive

nter-

related

meanings

ave

been

given

odiscourse

n The

Archaeology

fKnowledge:

(1) discoursess groupsf tatements;2) discoursess rule-boundractices;3)

discourses

s

practices

pecified

n

archives;

4)

discourses

s

practices

onstitut-

ing

objects;

and

(5)

discourses

s

totalities

eterminingubject positions

(Heracleous,

000).

Foucault

iewsdiscourses

s

groups

f

statements

hat be-




5/24

116 JACOBS

IRELAND)

AND HERACLEOUS

(SINGAPORE)

longto the ame discursiveormation.. forwhich group f conditions f

existence

an

be

defined

1997,

p.

1

17).

Discourses

redetermined

y

a

body

f

anonymous,

istorical

ules

ibid.,

.

117),

nd

systematically

orm

he

bjects

for

which

hey

peak

ibid.,

.

49).

Drawing

rom oucault'sdiscussion f discursive

ractices,

we view Con-

trolling

cience as

a

discursive

ractice

hat

as

real

effects

n

organizational

functioning

hrough

ts

production

f

truth

advocating

he

best

way

to or-

ganize

and

control

ndividuals o maximizefunctional

utcomes).

Foucault

(1977a,

pp.

199-200)

has

provided

succinct

iew

of

the

nature

nd

opera-

tions

f discursive

ractices:

Discursive

ractices

re

haracterized

y

he elimitationf field f

objects,

thedefinitionf

a

legitimate

erspective

or

he

gent

f

knowledge,

ndthe

fixing

f

norms

or he

laborationf

oncepts

nd heories.

hus,

ach

discur-

sive

practice

mplies

play

f

prescriptions

hat

esignate

ts

xclusions

nd

choices.

. .

Discursive

ractices

re

not

urely

nd

imply

ays

f

producing

discourse.

hey

re

mbodied

n

technical

rocesses,

n

nstitutions,

n

patterns

for

eneral

ehavior,

n

formsor

ransmission

nd

iffusion,

nd

n

pedagogical

forms

hich,

t

once,

mpose

ndmaintainhem.

Burrell

1988)

suggests

hat

he

rchaeologist

eeksto

identify

the

Same

in

theDifferent,o uncoverhoseruleswhich egulatendgovernocialprac-

tices,

nd

which

re unknown

y

the

ctors

nvolved

Burell,

1988,

p.

229).

It

is assumed

hat

partial istancing

rom

hese

nstitutionalonds s

possible

bybracketing

f

accepted

ruth. he

key

oleof

a

researcher

sing

n archaeo-

logical

method,

n

this

view,

s to act as an excavator

ho

reveals

depth

nd

interiority.

Hopwood

1987)

applies

his

kind

f

archaeological

method o

management

accountingystems.

e

points

othe nterrelation

etween

ccountingystem

nd

organization,

hich re

een

s

inextricably

inked. e

argues

hat

n

he

rganiza-

tional ontext

ccounting

egularly

urpasses

ts

implemonetary

eproduction

f

organizationalctivities;very ccountingechnique rovides newperspective

on

the

rganization

nd

renders

ew

hings

isible.

onsequently,

ew

organiza-

tional

ractices

re

nvented,

o

which

he

ccounting

ystem

must eact

gain.

Accounting ay hereby

ecome n

enabler

or

rganizational

hange,

ncluding

the

ossibilities

or

nd

necessity

f ts wn

ransformation.ue

to

such

mutual

process

f nteraction

nd

hange,

ccounting

an no

onger

laim obe

a

neutral,

apolitical,

etached

unction ithin

he

rganization

Hopwood,

987,

.

228).

An

archaeological

pproach

llows

he

esearcherotrace

ack

rganizational

istory

as

well as

theoretical

istory

n

order o

dentify

onceptual

ncestors f current

accounting

ools nd

nstrumentsn

their

ocial and

organizational

ontext

e.g.,

Hoskin ndMacve,1986;Miller ndHopwood, 994;Puxty, 993). norder o

explore

Controlling

cience,

we

thus

carefully

nd

cautiously

ort

hrough

he

sediments

Hopwood,

1987,

p.

230)

of

German

management

ccounting

on-

cepts

the

irst

tep

oward

n

archaeology

f

Controlling.




6/24

SEEING

WITHOUT

BEING SEEN 117

Genealogical oncerns

Around

he imeThe

Archaeologyf Knowledge

as

published,

oucault

ues-

tioned

he

lleged

neutrality

f

knowledge

nd ruthnd

rgued

hat selfishnter-

est comesbefore

nowledge

1977a,

p.

203).

Shortly

fter

hat,

n a

discussion

with

eleuze,

henoted hat the

uestion

f

power

emains total

nigma

1977b,

p.

213)

that

hould

e further

nvestigated.

uchcomments

ere clear

ndication

ofFoucault's

ubsequent

enealogical

nterests

ith henature nd

operations

f

power

nd ts nterrelationith

knowledge.

few

years

ater,

or

xample,

e

stated

hat theformationf discourses

ndthe

genealogy

f

knowledge

eed

o

be

analyzed

.. in ermsf acticsnd

trategies

f

power

1980a,

p.

77).

Foucault's

thinking

n

discourse

n

The

Archaeology

f Knowledge

ad

thus

ubsequently

moved

o

concerns ith

ower/knowledge

inkswhere iscourses

re

manifesta-

tions

f

the willto

power :

We hould

dmitatherhat

ower roduces

nowledge

that

ower

nd

knowl-

edge

irectly

mply

ne

nother,

hathere

s no

power

elation

ithouthe orrela-

tive

onstitution

f

field f

knowledge,

or

ny nowledge

hat

oes

not

resup-

pose

nd onstitute

t he

ame

ime

ower

elations.

Foucault,

977c,

.

27)

Foucault's

enealogies

im

n

particular

o

oppose

dominant,

nitary,yranni-

cal discoursesndtheirlaims f truth,ndtoallowalternativesobe seen nd

previously

arginalized

oices o

be heard

Foucault,

980b).

Despite

hediffer-

ences

between

is

archaeological

nd

genealogical

eriods,

oucault

1980b,

p.

85)

posits

continuity

n his

work nterms

f

archaeology

s

a

method

nd

gene-

alogy

s

praxis:

Archaeology

ould

e

the

ppropriate

ethodology

f

his

nalysis

f ocal

discursivities,

nd

genealogy

ould

e

the actics

hereby,

n

the

asis

f

he

description

f

these ocal

discursivities,

he

ubjected

nowledges

hich

were

thus eleased

ould e

brought

nto

lay.

In this ontext, e conductnarchaeologicalnalysisfControllingcience s

a discursive

ractice,

aking

nto

ccount

enealogical

oncerns

hat

ighlight

ow

this

iscursive

ractice

roduces

truth r

knowledge

hat s

far

rom

eutral

but

s

intimately

ound

p

with

onsiderations

f

power

nd control

hat eedto

be

made

xplicit

nd

critically

valuated.

Critiques

f

Foucault's

work

Foucault

as

been

riticizedn

several

ronts,

ncluding

or

is

mpenetrable

rit-

ing

tyle

Kermode,

994),

he

mployment

f

ogical autologies

nd

mbiguities

(Brown

ndCousins, 994;Frank, 992), he tructuralisteparationfdiscourse

from

ts

context

n

the

archaeological

pproach

Habermas,

987,

p.

250),

his

refusal

o

accept

human

ubjects

s

anything

ther

han etermined

y

discourse,

and

the

onsequent

ifficulties

n

theorizing

uman

gency

nd

ts

possibilities




7/24

118 JACOBS

IRELAND)

AND

HERACLEOUS

(SINGAPORE)

(Freundlieb,994;Newton, 994,1998;Racevskis, 994), s well s his refusal

to retain ne

position

or

onger

han he

period

etween

is

ast book and

the

next

Burrell,

988,

p.

222).

Brown

ndCousins

1994,

pp.

198-99),

for

xample,

mphasize

he

mbiguity

of

Foucault's

se

of

rules

f

discursive ormation

nd

ts

mplications:

The

question

ust emain.

hat re hese

ules

ndhow

do

they

unction?

. .

Without

he

egularity

f

tatements

t

would e

mpossible

o

ohere

discursive

formationnto definite

dentity,

venwhile

tressing

hat

his

identity

s

com-

posed

f

divisionsnd

differentiations.

ut

his oads

he

oncept

f

rulewith o

many isqualifications

hat

t

sdifficult

o

ee

how

oucault'sree f erivationan

permithepecificationf regularity.t s not omanyhingshatt sdifficulto

see

whatt s.

This

ifficulty

s

compounded

y

he act hat he

ule unctions

n

three ifferent

ays.

.

.

Possibility,egulation

nd

regularity

ll tend o

be

run

together

n he

ervicef

protecting

he iscursiveormation.t

begins

o eem

hat

it

s

the

ery

oncept

fdiscursive

ormationhichs

at

risk.

.

Foucault's

efusal

o

accept

he

elevance fhuman

gency

or

nalytical ur-

poses

n his

rchaeological

eriod

s

particularly

roblematic.

n The

Archaeology

of

Knowledge,

or

xample,

oucault tated

hat

he

position

f

speaking

ubjects

is determined

y

anterior

ystems

f

discourse:

he

nunciativeomain

the

do-

main f

things

aid)

s

thus

an

anonymous

ieldwhose

onfiguration

efines

he

possible osition

f

speaking ubjects

1997,

p.

122). nearlier

writings

e had

stressed

hat

discoursingubjects

orm

part

f he

iscursive

ield

they

ave heir

lace

within

it

..

and

heir

unction.

. .

Discourses

not

place

nto

which he

ubjectivity

irrupts;

t

s a

space

f

differentiated

ubject-positions

nd

ubject-functions.

Fou-

cault, 991,

.

58)

Critics

ave

maintained

hat ven n

his

genealogical eriod

oucault dvances

a

theory

f

subjectivity

hich

eaves

out he

ubject,

n the

ense hat

xplana-

tion t

he

evel

of

he

ubject

s

generally

voided

Newton

994,

.

894).

There s

no account fhow, or xample,ndividualshoosewhereopositionhemselves

in

relation

o

discourses,

r

how

they

an

actively egotiate

ith,

manipulate,

r

employ

iscursive

ractices

or

arious nds.

Ourown

position

ith

egard

o

agency

s not

deterministicne.We believe

that or ritical

nalyses

o hold

anypossibility

f

making

difference,

gency

must

e seen

s the

apability

omake

hoices ndtake

ction

Giddens,

984,

.

9).

In

this

ense,

our

concern

o

unmask he

mplicit

anoptic ssumptions

n

Controlling

cience

s

aligned

with

oucault's ater

enealogical

ritings,

s

dis-

cussed

bove.

Notwithstanding

ritiques

o

Foucault's

work,

t

has served

o

problematize

existing

nstitutionalnd

organizational

rrangements.

esearchersre

urged

ot

to take

hese

rrangements

or

ranted

ut

o

question

nd

probe

he

historically

contingent

rocesses

nvolvedn

nstitutional

roduction

nd

eproduction;

s well

as

in

nstitutional

onsequences

or

ractice

and

ndeed

otential

raxis).




8/24

•'SEEING

WITHOUT

BEING SEEN 119

Introducinghe rchaeological iteofControllingcience

Thedifferent

heoretical

nd

practical

erspectives

n

Controlling

an

be sum-

marized

urprisingly

asily:

ontrolling

s concerned

ith

nsuring

ationality

in

management.

Weber

nd

chäffer,

999,

.

743)

We

draw hecore

premises

f

Controlling

ciencefrom

hree

uthors Weber

(1995),

Küpper

1995),

and Horvàth

1996)-

who have

successfully

ublished

standard

extbooksnd re

onsidered

ajor

roponents

f

the

Controlling

isci-

pline

n

Germany. eyond

hese

extbooks,

e

draw

from hedebate

within he

disciplinever he ast enyears r so. Atthe enter fthis ebate as beenCon-

trolling

cience's

emancipation

rom

managementccounting

n theone

hand

and

general

management

n the ther n order

o

establish n

independent

heo-

retical

ield

e.g.,

Küpper,

eber,

nd

Zünd,

990;

Müller, 996;

chneider,991a,

1991b, 991c;Weber,

991,

1995;

Weber

nd

Knorren,

998).

The nternationalebate n

management

ontrol nd

managementccounting

has

been

ignificantly

oncerned

ith

ts

rganizational

nd

ocial

ontext

Puxty,

1993).

Whereas he

Anglo-Saxon

radition

as

been oncerned

ith

imely

nfor-

mation

or

ecision-making,istorically

ontrolling

nd

ts

ost

ccounting

ech-

niques

have focused n

the

productionrocesses

f the

firm,

ence ts

emphasis

ontechnicalationality.

According

o

proponents

f

Controlling

heory,

ts

key

purpose

s to

ensure

rationality

f

managemente.g.,

Weber nd

Schäffer,

999).

This

claim

of Con-

trolling

heory

o

provide,

nd contribute

o,

what could

be

considered

metacoordination

of

management

s

complemented

by

its

suggested

operationalization

hrough

raditional

ost

accounting

ools. t is

the im

of this

article

either

o

critically

xamine

onceptual

nconsistencies

esulting

rom his

rather

mbitious

laim nd ts

operationalization

hrough

ost

ccounting,

or o

assess

the

ppropriateness

fthese ost

ccounting

ools

n

ight

f

his laim.

But

an

awareness

f

these

spects

hould

rovide

ome

larity

or

eaders nfamiliar

with ontrollingoncepts.

For

the

purposes

f

our

nvestigation,

e

will

mainly

raw rom

he

extbooks

of

proponents

f mainstream

ontrolling

Horvàth,

996;

Küpper,

995;

Weber,

1995).

We

do,

however,

ecognize

heories

nd

approaches

n German

rganiza-

tion

heorye.g.,

Baecker, 999a, 1999b;

Kirsch,

992,

1997a,

1997b;

Ortmann,

1995;

Ortmann

t

al.,

2000)

as

well

s

in

Controlling

heorye.g.,Kappler,

999,

2000;

Habersam, 997;

Scheytt,

997;

Scheytt

t

l.,

forthcoming;

aecker, 992;

Willke,

989)

that

re

more

oncerned

ith heir wn

underlying

pistemological

assumptions.

Controlling

cience

s

part

f

Betriebswirtschaftslehre,eneral

usiness

d-

ministration

cience

n

German-speaking

reas,

istinguishes

womain unctions

in

company:

anagement

nd

perations.

hecoordination

f

operations

hrough

the

management

ystem

s called

primary

oordination

Weber,

995,

p.

34;

Horvàth,

996,

p.

124).




9/24

120

JACOBS

IRELAND)

AND

HERACLEOUS

(SINGAPORE)

Due tothe ncreasingomplexitynd ize ofbusinesses,ivision f abor nd

specialization

ncreases

ithin

he

managementystem

s

well.

Controlling

heory

identifies

ive

subsystems

ithin

he

managementystem:

lanning,

ontrol,

organization,

nformation,

nd

personnel.

he

function

f

Controlling

s

to

en-

sure

ationality

ithin he

management

ystem

Weber

nd

Schäffer,

999),

nd

to

centrally

oordinate

rganizational

ubsystems.3

ince

the

most

prominent

function

f

management

s

to coordinate

perations, ontrolling

heory's

ims

of

coordinating

the

management

system

can

be

seen

as

a

claim

of

metacoordination.

encethe

focus

n coordination

n

Controllingheory's

on-

ceptual

ramework.

Coordinations

Controlling's

ain unctionenotes

goal-oriented

nterven-

tion

o

lign

nterdependent

lements.

eber

1995)

proposes

coordination

hrough

plans

as

themost

fficient

orm f

coordination.4

onsequently,

he

planning

system

s

of

outstandingignificance

o

Controllingheory:

lanning

asto nsure

efficiency

f

management

nd

trategic

lignment

oward

he

goals

of

the

rgani-

zation.

Moreover,

hrough

lanning,

rational,

utcome-oriented

esign

f

the

futureanbe

anticipated.ationality

n

his ontext eans to

proceed onsciously

and

goal-orientedKüpper,

995,

p.

59).

Control

s

indispensable

or he

plan-

ningprocess

n

terms f

dentifying

eviations rom

he

plan.

The

information

systems considereds a service unctionoprovide he relevant nformation

for

he

managementystem

n

depicting

he

organization

aithfully.

ithin he

personnel

ystem,

eward nd

ncentive

chemes,

ncluding

raditional

areer e-

velopment

ools,

hould

roduce

n

appropriateoal

orientationfthe

ndividual

organizational

ember

Weber,

995).

Archaeology

f

Controlling,

:

Examining

onceptual

oundations

Interrelationship

etween

heory

nd

practice

Controllingheorys a whole trives o meet he tandardsf thedominating,

mainly

uantitativegeneral

usiness

dministration

cience,

which

epresents

prescriptive,

echnocratic

anagement

heory

n

the

German-speaking

ountries.

General

usiness

dministration

cience

ims

o

xplain

management

ractice

nd,

secondarily,

ims

o

prescribe

anagement

racticee.g.,

Gutenberg,

95

Heinen,

1991).

Controlling

s

a

subsidiary

cience

hus

dapts

his

elation

etween

heory

and

practice:

theory

recedes

ractice.

With

egard

o

practice,

ontrolling

s

disguised

s cost

ccounting

hat

reates

neutral nformation

sing

neutral

ools.

Controlling

heory's

ocus

n

the

de-

velopment

f neutral

ools

reduces he

potential

heoretical

cope

of

such ost

accountingools. nneglectingoengage ncriticaleflectionsn the heoretical

foundationsf

Controlling

cience nd

on the

rganizational

mpacts

n

Control-

lingpractice,methodological

nd

epistemological

spects

re not

dequately

d-

dressed

y

ts

proponents.




10/24


11/24

122

JACOBS

IRELAND)

AND

HERACLEOUS

(SINGAPORE)

whilemaximizingndividual enefitHorvàth, 994,p. 121;Küpper, 995,p.

59).

Agency

heory

wes ts

eputation

ithinhe

Controlling

cience

ommunity

to ts

hree

major isciplinarian

nstruments:

1)

rewards

hatead to

goal-oriented

behavior;

2)

norms o

directly

nfluencehe

gent's

ehavior;

nd

3)

the

stab-

lishment

f a

monitoringystem

o reduce

he

existing

nformation

symmetry

between

rincipal

nd

agent.

ince

Controlling

heory

raws

onceptually

rom

Agency

heory,

ts

isciplinarian

nstruments

an

be seen

from

Foucauldian

iew-

point

s

hierarchical

bservation

nd

normalizing

udgment.

hese are

key

as-

pects

f

a

regime

f

disciplinary

ower

hat

hould

e

explored

when

xamining

this

rea.

n

sum, ontrolling

s

positivist,eterminisi,

ndnomothetic

cience s

rootednthefunctionalist

aradigm

Burrell

nd

Morgan,

979).

It

s

worth

xaminingaylor's

cientific

anagement

[1911]

1993)

as

a

con-

ceptual

ncestor f

controlling

cience

or

hree

rimary

easons.7

n

the

irst

n-

stance,

nd

s

a

preliminary

onsideration,

aylor's

cientific

anagement

[1911]

1993)

s considered

n

nfluentiallassic

n

organization

heory

nd

management

studies

Bedeian

nd

Wren,

001),

so further

nderstanding

f tsnature nd

ef-

fectswould

be

useful

o

organization

heorists

nd

management

cholars

Wrege

and

Hodgetts,

000).

Second,

he

high

egree

f

similarity

etween

aylorism

nd

Controlling

ci-

ence, nepistemologicalndmethodologicalermsincluding aylorism's ery

strong mphasis

n

improvingrganizational

fficiencyhrough

ontrol f

ndi-

viduals),

uggests

he

otential

ruitfulnessffurther

xamination,

specially iven

that

aylorismredates

ontrolling

cience.Historical

tudies,

or

xample,

ug-

gest

hat

aylorism

xemplifies

a

shiftrom

ersonal

o

mpersonal

ontrol,

shift

romhe

ersonal

nd

ndirect

exercise

f

upervisory

nd

disciplinaryowers

..

to

systems

fbureaucratic

discipline

nd

inally

he

evelopment

f

ncreasingly

laborated

ystems

f ol-

lecting,

toring

nd

processing

nformation.

Dandeker,

990,

.

196)8

TheTayloristunctionalupervisoryystemsa clear llustrationf uniformp-

erating

rocedures

.

.

planned

nd

monitoredrom

n

office

fcentraltaff hich

stood

at the

apex

of

a

functionally

ifferentiatedabor

managementystem

(Dandeker,

990,

p.

185).

Third,

aylorist

nfluences

n

Controlling

heory's

ntological

nd

epistemo-

logical

orientation

an be

discerned

rom nother

irection;

ithin

erman

en-

eral

business

dministration

cience nd the

writings

f ts

prominentroponent,

Erich

Gutenberg

1929,

1951),

urther

uggesting

he

otential

ruitfulness

f

pur-

suing

his ink.

Gutenberg's

icroeconomics-based

pproach

imed

o

develop

n

objective,

universalheoryf he roductionnterprise,sing ost ccountingonsiderations

to determine

theoretically

chievable

ptimum.

his wouldbe

achieved

y

ap-

plying

functional

ationality

hile

xcluding

ny

mpirical

disturbances uch

as

organizational,

ocial,

or

human

actors. oth

Gutenberg's

nd

Taylor's

p-




12/24

SEEING WITHOUT BEING SEEN 123

proaches reclearly ootedn a managerial,unctionalistaradigm. utenberg

can

be

consideredn

ancestor

f

Controlling

cience

n

German-speaking

reas.

While

cknowledging

utenberg's

imilarities ith

aylorism

nd

his nfluence

on

Controlling

heory,

e imit ur

nvestigation

ere o

Taylorist

nfluences,

iven

that

n

nternationaludience

might

e

more

amiliar ith

t,

due to

imited

pace

andfor

higher

larity

f

argument.

Archaeology

f

Controlling,

I:

Taylor's

cientific

anagement

s an

ancestor

f

Controlling

cience

[The]

rganization

onsisted

..

of

one setof

men,

whowere

ngaged

n

the

development

f

the cience

f

aboringhrough

ime

tudy;

. .

another

et

of

men,

mostly

killed

aborers

hemselves,

ho

were

eachers,

nd

who

helped

and

guided

hemen

n

their

ork;

nother

etoftoolroom

enwho

provided

them

ith

he

ropermplements

nd

kept

hem

n

perfect

rder,

nd

notheret

of lerks

ho

lanned

he

work

well n dvance

. .

and

properly

ecordedach

man's

arnings.

Taylor,

1911]

1993,

.

70)

Taylor's

cientific

anagement

s

based

on

individual

ork

nstructions

nd

re-

muneration:

he ask

ndbonus

ystem.

cientific

n this

ontext enotes

he n-

deavor, sing ime ndmotiontudies,oemulate hemethodologyf natural

scientific

xperiments

ith he imof

dentifying

niversal

rinciples

f

efficient

functioning

the

positivist

pproach).

he labor

ffice

nd thefunctional

lerks

are

accountable

nd

responsible

or hese tudies

y

observing

nd

measuring

individual

erformance

n the

hop

floor. cientific

management

ims o

render

visible

he ndividual

orker

ndhis9

erformance

Taylor,

1911]

1993,

.

129)

through

he

panoptic

rinciples

f

hierarchical

bservation

by

functional

lerks)

and

normalizing

udgment

whether

he et

production

uotas

re

met,

hedevia-

tions

oted,

nd

appropriate

eward

r

sanction

anded

ut).

Taylor

dentified

hewaste f

resources

t

the

national

nd

corporate

evels s

the

key problem

f histime.He

diagnosed

hedominance f rule-of-thumb

practices

t the

workplace

nd assumed

hat

uman

ature as

a

preference

or

shirking.

he

management

tyle

hat uilt

n the

worker's

bility

or

motivation

and

self-management

as no

longer

een as

able to

cope

with

hese

wo

factors.

Taylor

trived

o

challenge

waste

nd

tscauses

by

keeping

etailed ecords

nd

conducting

nalyses

f

single

moves

n

order

o

extrapolate

eneralizable rin-

ciples.

The

goal

was

to

dentify

he est

physiological

ay

o

fulfill task

nd

to

identify

he

ppropriate,

orresponding

orking

ool

Taylor,

1911]

1993,

.

67).

10

Based

on ndividual

ime

ndmotion

tudies,

he

aily

workload

or ach

worker

andthemost fficientay fproducingtwere efined.heworkloadepresents

an

individual

orm

hat s

directly

inked o

the emuneration

f theworker.

he

task

nd

bonus

ystem

s

based on

four

rinciples.

irst,

he raditional

ule-of-

thumb

methods

replaced

y systematic

nd

scientific

andling

f

each

work




13/24

124

JACOBS

IRELAND)

AND

HERACLEOUS

(SINGAPORE)

element.econd, he ppropriateorkersre dentified,rained,nd nstructed,

instead fthe

previous

ystem

f

eaving

he

work

nd

training

p

to

theworkers

themselves.

hird,

earty

ooperation

as

to be

established

etween heworker

andthe lerks

o

motivateheworkero follow

he

nstructions.

inally,

ork

nd

responsibility

re

reallocated etweenworker nd

management

o

thatworkers

who

were

bearing

oth

he

responsibility

nd the

work

an

now

concentraten

just

the

work tself

Taylor,

1911]

1993,

p.

36).

The relief

fthis urden

as

seen

by

Taylor

s

necessary,

ecause oo

much

had been

demanded

rom heworker

n

the

ast.

Not

only

id

theworker ave

o

prepare

is

work,

hoosehis

tools,

nd

physically

o the

work,

e also had to

coordinatend

manage

iswork.

ccording

o

Taylor's

ewdivisionf

abor,

t s

the

abor

ffice hat

hould e

responsible

or he

ystematic

reparation

f

tasks

as well s

the hoice

f

the

ight

ools.

The task

ndbonus

ystem

s

based

on

highly

ndividualized

ork

nstructions

that

equired

etailed

nowledge

bout

workernd

his

performance,

trengths,

andweaknesses. ime nd

motion

tudies s well

s

observation

fworkers

s

thus

necessary.

he

analysis

f

hese

ata

llows

ne

to

dentify

he

ndividually

ppro-

priate,

est

method. o match

nstructions

nd

tools

with ndividual

orkers,

detailed

ystem

f surveillance

s

required.

Forthis urpose,he abor fficeollects, ecords,ndanalyzes llnecessary

statistics

equired

or

he

ask ndbonus

ystem.

ased

on time ndmotion

tud-

ies,

hemost fficient

ay

or

xecuting

certain

ask

s dentifiedor ach

worker

individually.

he

daily

workload or ach

worker

hen an be

defined.

he

com-

munication

ool

that

rovides

he

nstructions

s an

nstruction

ard

n

which he

worker inds is

workload nd a

description

f the ools

required,

s

well as the

method f

how he should

ulfill he

ask.

n

addition,

heworker

ets

perfor-

mance

eview

fthe

revious ay

which

ndicates he

egree

ffulfillmentf

his

quota

Taylor,

1911]

1993,

p.

68).

At the

hop-floor

evel,

Taylor

perationalized

urveillance,

nstruction,

nd

performanceeasurementy ntroducingunctionallerks: n nspectorespon-

sible

for he

nstructionf

workers,

gang

boss for hemachine

et

up,

he

peed

bossfor fficient

iming,

he

epair

ossfor

epair

nd

maintenance,

he ime lerk

regarding

emuneration,

nd he

oute lerk or

work

teps.

n

any

ase ofdifficul-

ties

with

he

ifferent

teachers,

he

isciplinarian

ould erve

s an

ombudsman

to

help

he

worker

Taylor,

1911]

1993,

p.

124).

Workers

re

rendered

isible

n

three

ways:

1)

through

ndividual ime nd

motion

tudies;

2)

through

he

ndividual

ork ask

defined

y

the

abor

ffice;

and

3)

throughaily

urveillance

y

the

functionallerks. n all

three

ases,

the

target

fthe

bservations the

ndividual,

is

performance,

nd

hisbehavior. ci-

entificmanagement'sequiredmplementations

top-down,

s itdoesnot

xpect

or

accept

hat

workersre

able to

understand

nd share

cientific

anagement

methods. he

key

notion f

Taylor's

rameworks the

task nd

bonus

ystem,

which

llows

every

ingle

worker

o

measure

is

performance

nd

progress.

he




14/24

SEEING

WITHOUT BEING SEEN 125

ultimateoal s the nternalizationfthe ask ndworkload ytheworker.fthis

act

of

elf-discipline

ere

uccessful,

hysical

bservation

nd

urveillance ould

no

longer

e needed.

This

system

as

the

par

excellence

perationalization

f

panopticism,

here

hierarchical

bservation

nd

normalizing

udgment

ere he

ornerstonesf

ts

effective

unctioning.

Taylor

ad thebest ntentions

or

upporting

heworker. utthe relief

f the

burden

f the

worker's

esponsibility

orhis work n fact

erved

o

reduce he

endorsed

nd

required

ehavioral

ptions

t the

workplace

o

a

minimum. he

task

ndbonus

ystemmplies

hat

ules, egulations,

nd

ontrol

re

preferable

s

coordination

echanismso theworker'snitiativendself-

management.

ocial

relations

o

coworkers

nd he

work

tself,

nd heir

otential

mpact

n

productiv-

ity

nd

skill

development,

erenot

mphasized

y Taylor's

cientific

anage-

ment.

his

is

an

apt

example

f

metaphorical arginalisation

Dillard

and

Nehmer,

990):

the

panoptical

rganizing

etaphor

ighlights

ontrol-oriented

aspects

fthe

pplication

omain

Controlling

cience

nd ts

rganizational

on-

text)

nd

marginalizes

elation-oriented

spects

because

of the

mphasis

n the

structure

f

the

ource

omain

the

Panopticon).

The

panoptic

rinciples

fhierarchical

urveillancend

normalizingudgment

arekeyunderlyingssumptionsfboth ayloristcientific anagementndGer-

man

Controlling

cience,

s

willbe

further

laborated

n

the

next

ection.

Archaeology

f

Controlling,

II:

The

Panopticon

s

a

unifying

eta-

phor

for

Taylorism

nd

Controlling

cience

In

1787

Jeremy

entham

esigned

n

nspection

ouse

nd

hereby

ave

rchitec-

tural

hape

o the dea of

permanent

urveillance

n

a

work ntitled

Panopticon,

r,

he

nspection

ouse:

containing

he dea

of

new

rinciple

f

Construction

pplicable

o

ny

ort

f

Establishment,

nwhich

ersons

f

ny

Descriptionretobekept ndernspection;nd nparticularoPenitentiary-

Houses,

risons,

ouses

f

ndustry,

ork-Houses,oor-Houses,

anufacturies,

Mad-Houses,

azarettos,

ospitals,

nd

Schools;

with Plan

of

Management

adapted

othe

rinciple.

Bentham

n

Foucault,

995,

.

258)

As

the

riginal

itle

ndicates,

he

anopticon

as

nitially

esigned

o fulfillur-

veillance

purposes

t various

nstitutions,

ncluding

houses

of

industry

nd

manufacturies,

n other

ords,

usiness

rganizations.

he

architectural

esign

of

the

Panopticon

onsists

f

a concentric

ing

t the

periphery

hich s divided

into

ells,

with

tower

t the enter

f

the

ring

rom

which

guard

an

perma-

nently

bserve

he

nmates

s

the

ell's windows

widely pen

to the nner ide.

The

guard

imselfannot e

seen,

s Venetianlindsmake t

mpossible

or he

inmates

o

know

whether

hey

re

being

bserved

r not:

in

the

périphérie

ing,

one

s

totally

een,

without

ver

eeing;

n the

entral

ower,

ne sees

everything

without

ver

eing

een

Foucault,

977c,

.

202).

With

his

rchitectural

esign,




15/24

126

JACOBS

IRELAND)

AND

HERACLEOUS

(SINGAPORE)

Benthamaiddown he rinciplehat

power

hould e visible ndunverifiable.isible:

he nmate

ill

constantly

have efore

is

yes

he all utline f he

entralower

rom

hich

e

s

spied

upon.

Unverifiable:

he nmate ust ever

nowwhether

e

s

being

ooked

t

any

ne

moment;

uthe must e sure

hat e

may

lways

e

so.

(Foucault,

1977c,

.

201)

There re t

east

hree

major

mpacts

f he

anopticon

n

ndividualehavior.

First,

he

uard

annot e

seen,

ut

he

nmate

lways

hasto assume

hat

bserva-

tion s

in

operation.

nly

he

ssumption

f

being

bserved

in

an

organizational

context,otonlybysuperiorsut lso bycoworkersnd evensubordinates)s

thus

ufficiento nduce

onforming

ehavior.

econd,

nd

onsequently,

he

res-

ence

ofthe

guard

s

replaced y

elf-discipline,

n

economic

erms,

hemost ffi-

cient

urveillance

echnique.

hird,

onforming

ehavior

hus onsists f

very

limited

ehavioral

ptions,

ne

of

the

most evere

mpacts

eing

hat

nmates

re

unable o communicate

ith

thernmates.

Discipline,

n

the

Panopticon

metaphor,

s

based on two

major

nstruments:

hierarchical

bservationnd

normalizing

udgment

nd sanction.

ccording

o

Foucault,

n the

ighteenthentury,

ue to the

higher omplexity

f

production,

increasing

umbers f

workers

n the

factories,

nd

more

division f

abor,

he

controllingfthese roductionlants equired newtype f surveillance.t was

new n the

ense hat

it an

ight

hrough

he

abor

rocess;

tdidnot ear

or

not

nly

on

production.

... It

lso

ook nto

ccount

he

ctivity

f

men,

heir

kill,

he

way

et bout heir

tasks,

heir

romptness,

heir

eal,

heir

ehavior.

Foucault,

977c,

.

174)

Surveillancen

production

hus ecame n

ndependent

unction,

epresentedy

specialized,

mnipresent

ersonnel.

s a

consequence,

ts

mportance

asraised o

decisive conomic

perator,

both s an internal

art

f

the

production achinery

and s

a

specific

mechanismn

the

isciplinary

ower.

ermanenturveillance

e-

came n integratedystem,inked romhenside f he conomynd o he ims f

the

mechanismn

which

t

was

practiced

Foucault,

977c,

.

175,

176).

In

order o

controlhe

ehavior

f

he

workers,

mechanism

as

required

that

coerces

y

means

f

observation;

n

apparatus

n

which he

echniques

hatmake

it

possible

o

see

induce

ffectsf

power,

nd n

which,

onversely,

he

means

f

coercionmake

hose

n

whom

hey

re

pplied learly

isible

Foucault,

977c,

p.

170).

Both

Controlling

cience

nd

Taylor's

cientific

anagement

onsider he

ability

orender

isible n

order

o

observe o

be

one

oftheir ore

functions.

uch

a

surveillance

echanism

wouldmaketpossibleor single azeto eeeverythingonstantly.central

point

would

e both

he

ource f

ightlluminating

verything,

nd

locus f

convergence

or

verything

hat

must eknown:

perfect

ye

hat

othing

ould

escape

nd

center

owards hich ll

gazes

would

e

turned.

Foucault, 977c,

p.

173)




16/24

SEEING WITHOUT BEING SEEN 127

But surveillancetself oesnot ssure onformitynbehavior:trequireshe

complementary

echanisms

f

normalizing

udgment

nd

anction.

oucault

ug-

gests

hat

very isciplinary

ystem

ncludes

penal

mechanismhat

enjoys

kind f

udicialprivilege

ith

ts own

aws,

ts

specific

ffences,

ts

particular

forms

f

udgment

Foucault,

977c,

.

177).

Everything

hat s

nonconforming,

a

deviation rom

given

norm r

standard,

as

to

be

penalized.

he

disciplinary

punishment

ims

oreduce eviationsndto

therebylign

ehavior.

isciplinary

punishment

nd

expected

onformity

re

deally

somorphic

s thenorm r

stan-

dard s

repeated

nd

reduplicatedy

he

enalty.

he correctiveffects not

ased

on

expiation

nd

repentance,

t

s

rather

obtained

irectlyhrough

he

mechanics

ofa

training.

o

punish

s to exercise

Foucault,

977c,

.

180).

Punishment

s

only

one element f a

disciplinary

ystem.

ts

counterpart

s

gratification

rreward.

n

order

o

dentify

eviation,

ehavior asto

be

recorded,

quantified,

nd

related

o the

norm.

hanks

o this

alculation,

the

disciplinary

apparatus

ierarchized

he

good'

and he

bad'

subjects

nrelation

ooneanother

(Foucault,

977c,

p.

181).

A

disciplinary

ystem

orks

long

ive imensions:

t

ompares,

ifferentiates,

hierarchizes,

omogenizes,

nd

excludes.

t renders

ndividual ehavior

isible,

compares

he

pecific

ehavior

with norm

r

standard,

ompares

ehavior e-

tweenndividualsndhierarchizes,ntroducesonformityhroughhenorm,nd,

finally,

enalizes

onconforming

ehavior

n

order

ofoster

onformity

Foucault,

1977c,

p.

182).

Hierarchical

bservation

nd

normalizing

udgment

ransform

isibility

nto

the xercise

f

power:

Traditionally,

ower

was whatwas

seen,

what

was shown

and

what

was manifested.

n

contrast,

isciplinaryower

is exercised

hrough

its

nvisibility.

..

It

s

the

ubjects

who

have o

be seen.

.. It

s

the act f

being

constantly

een,

of

being

ble

always

o

be

seen,

hat

maintains

he

disciplined

individual

n

his

subjection

Foucault,

911

,

p.

187).

Discussion ndimplications

In

summary,

ur

nalysis

roceeded

hrough

hree

rchaeological

oments.

irst,

we

ocated

ontrolling

cience s

positivist,

eterminist,

nd

nomothetic,

hus

irmly

rooted

n

the

unctionalist

aradigm.

We

suggested,

oreover,

hat

he

myopia

f

Controlling

cience

decontextualizing

ccounting

romts

historical

nd

organi-

zational

ontexts),

eads

to

an unintended

nd ubtle

cceptance

nd

perpetuation

of

the

operationalization

f

the

panopticon

rinciple

we

examined

anoptic

f-

fects

n more

etail

uring

ur hird

rchaeological

oment).

Second,

we

proposed

hat

aylor's

cientific

anagement

an be

viewed s

a

conceptual

ncestorf

Controlling

cience.The task

ystem

s well as the abor

office

hat

ontrols

n individual

orker's

erformance

re

n effect

epresenta-

tions

f

hierarchical

bservation

nd

normalizing

anction,

he wo

ornerstones

of

the

anopticon.




17/24

128

JACOBS

IRELAND)

AND

HERACLEOUS

(SINGAPORE)

In our hirdndfinal rchaeological oment,mbuedwith enealogicalon-

cerns,

we

explored

he

naturef he

anopticon

s

a

potentmetaphor

or

isciplin-

ary

egimes

hat sehierarchical

bservation

nd

normalizing

anction;

nd howed

that he

Panopticon

an be

seen as

a

unifying

etaphor

or

oth

Taylorism

nd

Controlling

cience. he

major mpacts

fthe

Panopticon rinciple

elate

o dis-

torted

ommunication,

hereduction

f

behavioral

ptions

hrough

he

ssump-

tion f

being

bserved,

ndthe reation

f

self-discipline

hat

makes he

hysical

presence

f

an

inspector

nnecessary.

We

chose

here

ofocus n

such

epressive

spects

f

he

anopticon

ecause

ts

very

aisond'être

was surveillance

nd control f

individuals.ts

very esign

operationalizes

he

principle

f

power

s bothvisible ndunverifiable,ndits

presence

nables

hierarchical

bservationnd

normalizing

udgment

nd sanc-

tion. oucault alled

Panopticism

a

technological

nvention

n

he rder

f

power,

comparable

ith he

team

ngine

nthe

rder f

production

Foucault,

980a,

.

71).

Panopticism

s

a

metaphor

an n a

broader ontext

id

our

understanding

f

several

urrent

urveillance

nd

control

ractices

n variouskinds

f

organiza-

tions,

imed t

all

ndividualsnd

upported

y

echnology

hat

s both

mnipres-

ent ndhidden

e.g.,

Green,

999).

Controllingcience s panoptic ractice

Budgets

nd

standard

osts were

developed

t the

beginning

f the

twentieth

century

nd re

now

onsideredtandard

nstrumentsithin

ontrolling

Horváth,

1996,

p.

253;

Küpper,

995,

p.

133;

Weber, 995,

p.

131).

They

stablish norm

that

onfronts

ndividuals

ith ertain

ehavioral

xpectations.

ndividual e-

havior

an

now

be

quantified

n

terms f

costs

nd

thereby

ranslated

n

pecuni-

ary

nits.

very

ndividuals

represented

y

ertain

standard)

osts

gainst

hich

individual

ontributionnd

eventually

eviation an be

measured.

Managerial

accounting

hereby

equires

ccountability

f

individual

ehavior

Miller

and

O'Leary,1987).

Accounting

ims

t

rendering

isible

ndividual,eam,

nd

organizational

er-

formance.

isibility

s

created

hrough

process

f

ndividualization

nd

series

of

norms nd

standardshat

urround

he ndividual. hese

norms nd

standards

provide

means

o

identify

nd

quantify

eviation

rom

onforming

ehavior r

performance.

n

addition,

hese

ccounting

echniques,

nce

mplemented,

o not

need the

permanent

resence

f a

functional

lerk, ccountant,

r

manager.

n-

stead,

he

ommunication

etween

management

nd

operations

ses

management

accounting

s an

mpersonal

interface

o that

controlomes

o

be

seen

oreside

not

n

thewill

of

the

boss

but

n

the

conomicmachine

tself,

n

the

norms nd

standardsrom hichheworkeranbeseen odepartMiller ndO'Leary, 987,

p.

239).

Scientific

anagement

nd

Controlling

cience

re

somorphic

n

their

nder-

lying

ssumptions,

hich

oth

raw rom

anopticism.

rganizational

ost-ben-




18/24


19/24

130 JACOBS

IRELAND)

AND

HERACLEOUS

(SINGAPORE)

his mentor. othnorms onflictedn this ase,and t was due toorganizational

power

elations

hat

he ominantormwas

to

meet

he

rofit

argin,

ven

hough

the real

ostswerehiddenwithinn

overhead

ost

ode.

Controllingheoryredicts

hat

lans

oordinate

ndividualehavior

ffectively.

In this

ontext,

he

ominant

lanfigure

as the

rofit

argin,

hich

esulted

na

certain

roject

ost tructure.utthedefensive outines

f

project

managers

in-

dered

pen

discussion

nd

communication

f

the

ssue of

costoverrun.

nstead,

they

ften

pted

o

creatively

eallocate he

osts

withinhe

management

ccount-

ing

ystem.

In terms

f

panopticism,

ommunicativection

was

neglected

or

he ake of

short-termndividual

erformance

equirements.

rganizational

earning

ashin-

dered,

s

this

trategy

as

common

ractice

n

several

rojects.

his

ost-hiding

strategy

s

harmful

n the

ong

run

s

it

ncreases verhead

osts o

an

unaccept-

able

evel,

which

esults

n

ven

higher

roject rofit

argins

equired

o over he

artificially

ncreased verhead

osts.

The

consequences

f

panopticism

n

Controlling

cience

and

accounting

ystems

Our nvestigationontributeso thefield forganizationtudiesnthefollowing

ways.

irst,

he

nternational

ritical ebate n

managementccounting

nd

ontrol

systems

asbeen

ignificantly

oncerned ith ts

rganizational

nd ocial

spects

(e.g.,

Kappler,

000;

Puxty,

993).

n

contrast,

ainstream

ontrolling

heory

n

German-speaking

reas

generallyeglects

uch

oncerns

nd

he

elevancef

our-

nals uch s

Accounting;

rganizations

nd

Society;

ccounting,uditing

ndAc-

countability

ournal;

r

Cñtical

Perspectives

n

Accounting

hat

ublish

esearch

on

the

organizational

nd

social

aspects

f

managementccounting

nd

control

systems.

onsidering

ur

work

s

an

early

ontribution,

nd

furthering

his

tream

of

research,

might

eliver

mutual

enefits

o

scholars

f both

Controlling

nd

internationalccountingndorganization.n theonehand, tmightrigger

critical

eflection

n

the

tatus

uo

of

Controllingheory.

n the

other,

t

might

enhance he

understanding

f the

nternational

cademic

ommunity

f

concepts

and

approaches

n

general

usiness

dministration

nd n

Controllingheory.

Our

archaeological

nvestigation

f

Controlling

heory

as

helped

o

place

ts

approaches

nd

concepts

n

perspective,

specially egarding

he

ntological

nd

epistemological

oundationsf the

discipline.

opefully,

his

will

help

broaden

the

perspective

fthe

iscipline

o be

more onscious f ts

ontological

nd

epis-

temological

oundations.

In

addition,

roadening

he

erspective

oward

rganizational

nd

ocial

mpli-cationsmight

elp

Controlling

heory

o delivern one of ts

promises;

roviding

pragmatic

venues

toward

fficiently

nd

effectively

mplementing

nd

using

Controlling

nstruments

mainly

ost

ccounting

ools),

given

hat he

fficiency

and

ffectivenessf

hese

nstruments

re

highly

inked

o

their

rganizational

nd




20/24

SEEING WITHOUT BEING

SEEN 131

socialcontexts. ne implicationfour nvestigations thatControllingheory

should

im at

applying

more eflexive

pproach

when

designing

nd

offering

new

Controlling

nstruments,

earing

nmind he imitations

s

well s

the

oten-

tial ontributionsf ts

echniques.11

The

panoptic

ature f

Controlling

cience,

nd

management

ccounting

ore

generally,

riggers

ndividual

nd

organizational

efensive

outines

hat re

antilearning

nd

thereby

inder

otentialrganizational

hange.

ecause

budgets

are

ccounting

echniques

esigned

ocontrolosts

hrough

eople

nd

o

llocate

organizational

ewards

nd

penalties,

hey

epresent

otential

mbarrassmentnd

threat

o

organizational

embers

Argyris,994b, . 173).

Based

on our

nalysis,

we would

ephrase

his

onception

nd

propose

hat

udgets

re

ccounting

ech-

niques

to

control

eople

hrough

osts.

Budgets

nd

planned

osts

epresent

he

disciplinary

egime

f

managementccounting

hat

might

rigger

efensive ou-

tines.

As

Argyris

1994a,

p.

164)

notes:

Organizational

efensive outines ake

it

unlikely

hat

he

rganization

ill

ddress

he actorshat aused he

mbarrass-

ment

r threatn the irst

lace.

Organizational

efensive outinesre

anti-learn-

ing

nd

overprotective.

To

conclude,

anopticism

esults

n

wo

major

roblems

or

n

organization.

t

the evel

ofthe

ccounting

ystem,

n order o

protect

hemselvesrom

he

hreat

ofsurveillance,rganizational embers ill distortata andinformation.his

will ead to

significant

oss

nthe

uality

f

he

management

nformation

ystem

(Ezzamel,

1994).

At

the evelof

organizational

hange

nd

earning,

o

progress

with

egard

o the

ccounting

ystem

an be

expected,

s discursiventeraction

s

suppressed

ue to

the

undiscussability

f the ssues

Argyris,

994a,

p.

164).

Panopticism

annot e

prevented,

ut

nmasking

nd

critically

valuating anop-

tic

principles

n

Controlling

cience

nd

exploring

heir ffectss

the

first

tep

o

enlightened

hange.

Notes

1 The

appropriateness

f

equating

ontrolling

nd

management

ccounting

as sub-

ject

to

a

lively

debatewithin

he

discipline

tself

e.g.,

Küpper,

Weber,

nd

Zlind,

1990;

Schneider, 991a,

1991b,

991c;Weber,

991).

2. See

the eflectionselow

n

the

xperience

fClaus

Jacobs n

panopticism

twork.

3.

Willke

1989)

draws

n

entirely

ifferent

onclusion:

ncreasingomplexity

ithin

operations

s well as the

management

ystem

annot esult

n

ncreasing

entral

oordina-

tion.

rom

general

ystems

heoryiewpoint,

ppropriate

oordination

an

only

e estab-

lished

y,

nd

among,

he

ubsystems

hemselves.

4.

Weber

1995)

neglects

ther

otential

orms f

coordination

uch

s

corporate

ul-

ture,

nformal

oles,

ules,

tatus,

r

nternal

arkets.

5.Thecovering-lawornomotheticapproachssumes he ossibilityf dentifying

and

defining

eneralizable,

niversal

aws and

patterns.

eneral cientific

aws

combined

with

nitial

ondition

tatements

explanans)

llow for

he

ogical

xplanation

nd

predic-

tion

f

the

phenomenon

n

question

explanadum).

6.

In

describing

heviewof

planning

n

Controlling

cience,

we

do

not

deny

ther




21/24

8/18/2019 Lectura en Inglés - Seeing Witout

Documents

Lectura en Inglés - Seeing Witout Been Seen - Article