Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Business and Management
Human Resources Management

New Ways of Working: From Smart to Shared Power

Profile image of Michel AjzenMichel AjzenProfile image of Laurent TaskinLaurent Taskin

Abstract

This chapter questions the relevance of the concept of smart power in organization studies and, specifically, in the study of new ways of working (NWOW) implementation. NWOW embrace a broad set of organizational practices, ranging from spatial and temporal flexibility to self-management. Beyond such set of (somehow traditional) work practices, the singularity of NWOW seems to lie in its governance epitome, valuing a peculiar philosophy of management, i.e. a more democratic way of managing organizations. The Smart power approach could play a key role in the effective implementation of NWOW. However, drawing on existing studies, we report some paradoxes making NWOW a piece of what may be seen as old-fashioned management practices and organizational pattern that, far from constituting a promise for alternative modes of governance, also constitute new attempts to disciplinarize employees. Claiming organizational rules need to be appropriated by actors in order to become effective, this chapter argues a smart power perspective is not relevant at the micro-level, where traditional approaches of power and agency are more complete. While considering innovative NWOW, smart power approach seems well relevant to analyze meso regulations and, especially, governance issues.

Related papers

Power crafting at work: A phenomenological study on individual differences
Aykut Berber

Human Relations, 2020

What does having power mean, not for, but to an individual at work? In this article, we focus on the individual’s concerns and experiences in the work setting and discuss how individuals conceptualise and construct their own power at work. This perspective is important due to its corresponding implications for how individuals choose their jobs, how they show proactive work behaviours and how they are engaged in power relations in organisations. In-depth interviews with 11 participants were subjected to interpretative phenomenological analysis and key themes were identified to explain how these individuals cognitively, socially and operationally crafted their ‘own’ versions of power in their organisations. Despite the idiosyncratic similarity among the participants, our analysis revealed a clear divide: ‘position-based power holders’ and ‘territory holders’. We first present our findings and results with interview excerpts and implications drawn from the emergent themes based on part...

View PDFchevron_right
Balancing Stakeholder Interests: Socio-Technical Perspectives on Smart Working Practice
Christine Welch

Smart Working, Living and Organising

The advantages put forward for so-called Smart working may sound very appealing. However, it is unlikely that all stakeholder groups involved will benefit to the same extent, if at all. Many initiatives that seem to be aimed at development of Smart work systems can be seen to be flawed, since they are suggested to support empowerment but are expressed in terms of pre-defined 'best practice'. This inherent paradox leads to consideration of ways in which innovation could occur that would lead to genuinely Smart systems, harnessing Smart technologies and empowering engaged actors to co-create meaningful practice in pursuit of professional excellence. An open, socio-technical systems approach is suggested to be the way forward.

View PDFchevron_right
Smart Working: Rethinking Work Practices to Leverage Employees’ Innovation Potential
Luca Gastaldi

We investigate Smart Working (SW), a set of modern and not-conventional organisational models that are characterised by high flexibility in the choice of the working spaces, time and tools, and that provides all employees of a organisation with the best working conditions to accomplish their tasks. Specifically, the paper aims to: (i) identify whether firms adopt different SW models: (ii) explore complementarities between the elements that can lead to choose a SW model, and (iii) figure out whether contingent variables matters in the implementation of a particular SW model. In order to achieve these goals, we have delivered a survey to 100 HR directors of medium and large Italian organisations and accomplished multiple, embedded case studies. Empirical evidence suggest that the managers who aim to fully benefit of SW practices should not only invest in the enabling digital technologies, but also make the complementary transformations in organisational policies and workspace settings, according the contingent conditions under which they operate.

View PDFchevron_right
Hegemonic Power Processes in Team-based Work
Hans Doorewaard

Applied Psychology, 2003

View PDFchevron_right
INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIOLOGY: Review of Power in Organizations
Valeria Diaz

Review of Power in the Organization, 2017

This paper reviews the notion of power in general and in concrete how this is applicable and present in business organizations today, more precisely a review and account of power embedded in elements of the structure of the organization is given.

View PDFchevron_right
Book Review: Power at Work: Power at Work: How Employees Reproduce the Corporate Machine, Darren McCabe. London: Routledge, 2007. 242 pp.  80.00. ISBN 9780415417976 (hbk)
Iain Munro

Organization, 2011

View PDFchevron_right
Smart working in Italian Public Administration: A Socio-Technical Approach
Roberta Cuel

2021

In the last decades, new ways of job organization, like remote working, have been introduced to satisfy the need to rethink, redefine and redesign the organization of work in terms of nature, content, and responsibilities. In 2020, due to the pandemic emergency generated by SARS-CoV-2 (commonly known as Covid-19) and the policies to limit the mobility to contain the contagion, the diffusion of these new forms of work accelerated considerably. The evolution of work practices provides an exemplar use case of social and technical disruption. The principles of a Socio-Technical System (STS) are a compass to interpret the transformation of technology, processes, tasks, organizational culture, goals, and people. Adopting a STS approach, this paper aims to shed light on the impact of remote working (often called agile or smart working) in Public Administrations (PAs). A multi case analysis is conducted by coding diaries written by heads of staff and IT executives involved in the process of...

View PDFchevron_right
Literature Review on the Governance of Work
Sayomi Ariyawansa

2019

In recent decades, there have been fundamental shifts in governance both within the nation state and beyond, in the world of work and many other areas of policy. This publication presents key findings from the literature on innovative governance of work in practice. Dr. Tess Hardy and Sayomi Ariyawansa survey a wide range of theoretical perspectives on regulation and governance, challenges to governance, responses to those challenges and the interaction of public and private governance. The last of these is of particular significance in view of both the proliferation of private governance initiatives and also the challenges that the ILO has experienced in defining its own role in respect of corporate social responsibility.

View PDFchevron_right
Evolution of Organizational Power
Jolanta Bieńkowska

China-USA Business Review, 2016

The surrounding reality undergoes dynamic transformation, which has a substantial impact on the functioning of the organization. One of its important aspects is the organizational authority and forms of its exercise. Therefore, the research problem, undertaken in the article, boils down to the question: what is the direction of changes in the way of organizational governance from birth of management science to the present day? In order to find the answer, the deductive method was used. In contrast, the analysis of the research problem was carried out by adopting two dimensions of power. In the first dimension, the power is treated as a social influence exerted on members of the organization, in the second—as the scope of control over the relationship with the organization’s close stakeholders (customers, suppliers, and competitors). Their distinction was emphasized in the structure of the article, firstly in separate parts by presenting the chronology of the occurred changes, then by building up the justification separately for each of them of a pragmatic approach to governance of the organization at the present time. Changing of the dominant character of workers from low-skilled workers into knowledge workers triggered a need to redefine the attitudes of superiors towards seeing the workers in the category of capital necessary for the development of the organization. In turn, the direction of evolution of relations with the environment has been determined by the disappearance of borders between the organization and the environment, which resulted in the need for openness with regards to entering into temporary (instead of the previously long-term) inter-organizational forms of cooperation, thus in the change in tactics of making impact on the stakeholders of the organization. The article’s considerations lead to the conclusion that the evolution of organizational authority moves towards its progressive dispersion and the associated autonomy of organizational behaviour. The growing independence of employees and limited opportunities to maintain control over the close environment are forcing organizations to accept uncertainty and the temporariness of measures taken, and to redefine the essence, scope, and modalities for organizational governance. Moreover, they lead to being guided by pragmatic values such as trust and credibility. This situation also leads to the conclusion that the research into developments in the field of organizational governance is important from the point of view of the need to adapt to new and complex ways of its exercise, to respond to the demands of the situation and the expectations under its influence.

View PDFchevron_right
A multi-dimensional analysis of managers' power - functional, socio-political, interpretive-discursive, and socio-cultural approaches
Rune Todnem By
View PDFchevron_right

References (57)

  1. Ajzen, M., Donis, C., & Taskin, L. (2015). Kaléidoscope des Nouvelles Formes d'Organisation du Travail : L'instrumentalisation stupide d'un ideal collaborative et démocratique. Gestion 2000, 31(3), 125-148.
  2. Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A stupidity-based theory of organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1149-1220.
  3. Baines, S., & Gender, U. (2003). What is family friendly about the workplace in the home? The case of self-employed parents and their children. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), 223-234
  4. Barker, J. (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage : Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408-437.
  5. Baruch, Y., & Nicholson, N. (1997). Home, sweet home: requirements for effective home working. Journal of General Management, 23(2), 15-30.
  6. Bélanger, J., & Thuderoz, C. (2010). Le répertoire de l'opposition au travail. Revue Française de Sociologie, 51(3), 427-460.
  7. Bell, B., & Kozlowski, S. (2002). A typology of virtual teams : Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14-49.
  8. Bobillier Chaumon, M.E. (2003). Evolutions techniques et mutations du travail : émergence de nouveaux modèles d'activité. Le Travail Humain, 66 (2), 161-192
  9. Boncori, A-L., & Mahieux, X. (2012). Au-delà du bien et du mal. La théorie et les pratiques de gestion. Revue Française de Gestion, n°228-229, 129-146
  10. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  11. Carney, B., & Getz, I. (2009). Freedom, Inc. : Free your employees and let them lead your business to higher productivity, profits, and growth, New York : Random House Inc.
  12. CSIS. (2007). Center for Strategic and International Studies commission on smart power. A smarter, more secure America (pp. 82): CSIS.
  13. Cheney, G, Santa Cruz, Peredo, A-M., & Nazareno, E, (2014). Worker cooperatives as an organizational alternative: Challenges, achievements and promise in business governance and ownership. Organization, 21(5), 591-603.
  14. Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Clegg, S. (2012). Resisters at Work: Generating Productive Resistance in the Workplace. Organization Science, 3(May-June), 801-819.
  15. Courpasson, D. (2000). L'action contrainte. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France.
  16. Crozier, M. & Friedberg, E. (1977). L'acteur et le système. Paris : Seuil.
  17. Crozier, M. (1964). Pouvoir et organisation. European Journal of Sociology, 5(1), 52-64.
  18. Cushen, J., & Thompson, P. (2012). Doing the right thing? HRM and the angry knowledge worker. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(2), 79-92.
  19. Devos, V., & Taskin, L. (2005). Entre individualisation et autonomie contrôlée. Gestion par les compétences et nouvelles formes d'organisation du temps et de l'espace. Revue Française de Gestion, 31(156), 93-104.
  20. Dixon, K., & Panteli, N. (2010). From virtual teams to virtuality in teams. Human Relations, 63(8), 1177-1197.
  21. Edwards, P. & Wajcman, J. (2005). The politics of working life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Felstead, A., Jewson, N., & Walters, S. (2005). Changing Places of Work. London : Palgrave.
  23. Gavel, D. (2008). Joseph Nye on Smart Power. Harvard Kennedy School Insight Interview, (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18419/joseph_nye_on_smart_power.html).
  24. Geary, J. (2003). New forms of work organization : still limited, still controlled, but still welcome ? In Edwards, P. (Ed.). Industrial Relations, Theory and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd, 338-367.
  25. Haigh (2012). The Office. Melbourne : The Miegunyah Press.
  26. Halford, S. (2005). Hybrid workspace: re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20(1), 19-33.
  27. Hennestad, B. (2000). Implementing Participative Management. Transition Issues from the field. The journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(3), 314-335.
  28. Hislop, D. (2008). Mobility and Technology in the Workplace. New-York: Routeldge.
  29. Holman, D., Wall, T., Clegg, C., Sparrow, P., & Howard, A. (2005). The Essentials of the New Workplace. A guide to the human impact of modern working practices. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  30. Holman, D., Wood, S., Wall, T., & Howard, A. (2005). Introduction to the Essentials of the New Workplace. In Holman, D., Wall, T., Clegg, C., Sparrow, P., & Howard, A. (Eds.). The Essentials of the New Workplace. A guide to the human impact of modern working practices. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1-14.
  31. Huws, U. (2014). Labor in the global digital economy: the cybertariat comes of age. New-York: Monthly Review Press.
  32. Kärreman, D., & Alvesson, M. (2004). Cages in tandem : Management control, social isolation, and identification in a knowledge-intensive firm, Organization, 11(1), 149-175
  33. Kelliher, C., & Richardson, J. (2012). New ways of organizing work. London: Routledge Knights, D., Thompson, P., Smith, C., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). Workplaces of the Future. New York : Palgrave.
  34. Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations : A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stages of human consciousness. Bruxelles : Nelson Parker
  35. Linhart, D. (2015). La comédie humaine du travail -De la déshumanisation taylorienne à la sur- humanisation managériale. Toulouse : Erès
  36. Manoochehri, G., & Pinkerton, T. (2003). Managing telecommuters: Opportunities and challenges. American Business Review, 21(1), 9-16.
  37. Milkman, R. (1998). The New American Workplace : High Road or Low Road ? In Knights, D., Thompson, P., Smith, C., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). Workplaces of the Future. New York : Palgrave, 25-39.
  38. Neufeld, D., & Fang, Y. (2005). Individual, social and situational determinants of telecommuter productivity. Information & Management, 42(7), 1037-1049.
  39. Nye, J.S (2004). Soft power. The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs: Cambridge Nye, J.S. (2006). Soft Power and European-American Affairs. In T. L. Ilgen (Ed.), Hard Power, Soft Power and the future of Translatlantic Relations. CornWall: Ashgate, 25-38
  40. Nye, J.S. (2011). The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.
  41. Parker M., Cheney G., Fournier V., & Land, C. (Eds.) (2014). The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization, London: Routledge.
  42. Perez, M., Sanchez, A., de Luis Carnicer, M., & Vela Jimenez, M. (2004). The environmental impacts of teleworking: A model of urban analysis and a case study. Management of Environmental Quality, 15(6), 656-671.
  43. Peters, P., Poutsma, E., Van der Heijden, B., Bakker, A., & de Bruijn, T. (2014). Enjoying new ways to work: an HRM-Process approach to study flow. Human Resource Management, 53(2), 271-290.
  44. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshifeld : Pitman.
  45. Picard, H. (2015). "Entreprises libérées", Parole libérée ? Lectures critiques de la participation comme projet managérial émancipateur, Université Paris-Dauphine : Paris.
  46. Proenca, T. (2010). Self-managed work teams: An enabling or coercive nature. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(3), 337-354.
  47. Reynaud, J.-D. (1979). Conflict and social regulation: A sketch of a theory of joint regulation. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 17(3), 314-321.
  48. Richter, P., Meyer, J., & Sommer, F. (2006). Well-being and stress in mobile and virtual work. In J. Andriessen & M. Vartiainen (Eds.), Mobile virtual work. A new paradigm? Heidelberg: Springer, 231-252.
  49. Silva, F., & Ben Ali, A. (2010). Emergence du travail collaboratif: nouvelles formes d'organisation du travail. Management & Avenir, 6(36), 340-365.
  50. Smith, W.K. & Lewis, M.W (2011) 'Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing'. Academy of Management Review, 36 (2), 381-403
  51. Stanworth, C. (1997) 'Telework and the information age'. New Technology, Work and Employment, 13(1), 51-62.
  52. Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory Processes / Paradoxical Practices. Communication and the Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy. Management Communication Quartely, 14(3), 349-407.
  53. Taskin, L., & Edwards, P.K. (2007). The possibilities and limits of telework in a bureaucratic environment: Lessons from the public sector. New Technology, Work and Employment, 22(3), 195-207.
  54. Taskin, L., & Ajzen, M. (2015). Managing sustainable and innovative workplaces: NWOW, towards sustainable organizational performance? Louvain-la-Neuve: Louvain School of Management Research Institute -UCL.
  55. Taskin, L., & Van Bunnen, G. (2015). Knowledge management through the development of knowledge repositories: Towards work degradation, New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(2), 158-172.
  56. Taskin, L. & Raone, J. (2014). Flexibilité et disciplinarisation : repenser le contrôle en situation de distanciation, Economies et Sociétés, Série « Etudes critiques en management », KC, 3 (1), 35-69.
  57. Taskin, L. (2012). New ways of organizing work: Developments, perspectives and experiences, Management Learning, 43(4), 467-469

Related papers

Managing Power in Organizations: The Hidden History of its Constitution
Stewart Clegg

The SAGE Handbook of Power

View PDFchevron_right
Power in the ‘Organisation’: A Soft Systems Perspective
Frank Stowell

Systemic Practice and Action Research

All systems must adapt in order to survive, this is as true for a business organisation as any other system. A business exists in a turbulent environment and in order to maintain its relationship with its environment its managers have to adapt it to the circumstances. The effect of the present pandemic is an example with some staff working from home, active blended learning in the education sector and social distancing have all created an urgency to accommodate the unprecedented consequence of the situation. To effect the necessary changes that these circumstances have generated means exercising some form of power to change operating procedures. Change creates uncertainty, the threat of the reallocation of resources, delegated power, redundancies and a change in group relationships. This produces a feeling of insecurity in those within the organisation often resulting in resistance to the proposals in an attempt to maintain the status quo. They are faced with adapting or resisting t...

View PDFchevron_right
Self-Directed work teams and power
Guido Maes

Work design with its roots in socio-technical systems theory aims at producing a work structure that is both productive and humanly satisfying. Socio-technical systems theory promotes self regulating work groups as a way to create an effective relationship between the social and technical components of work systems. The two specific problems that are under investigation on this topic are the role of the supervisor of the team and the way managerial tasks are executed within these teams. Socio-technical systems theory sees the redistribution of responsibilities merely as a technical problem instead of a power issue. In this paper we review the way in which self-managed teams are empowered, using insights from theories on power.

View PDFchevron_right
Special Issue: Power in Organizations - Power of Organizations edited by Axel Haunschild, Werner Nienhueser, Richard Weiskopf
Stewart Clegg

Managers' power within organisations has been analysed by several approaches: Orthodox management and organisation studies ('functional approach'), Critical Management Studies ('socio-political approaches'), interpretive, discourse-oriented and constructivist concepts ('interpretive-discursive approaches'), and anthropological, socio-psychological and sociological approaches ('socio-cultural approaches'). In organisational reality functional, socio-political, interpretive-discursive, and socio-cultural aspects are closely related and intertwined. However, because of division of intellectual labour, probably more because of different worldviews, researchers often make use of these approaches quite selectively. Such focussing has its advantages but also weaknesses. This paper therefore argues that it often helps to investigate complex phenomena such as managers' power in multi-dimensional ways.

View PDFchevron_right
A Question of Power: How does Management Retain It?
Devi Akella

Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 2003

This paper examines whether the concept of learning organizations is a myth and if it is possible to intertwine workplace democracy with profitability. Theoretically, learning organizations have the capacity to achieve the goals of socialists, i.e., worker participa- tion, employee empowerment, and full profit sharing amongst members at all levels of the organization. This paper draws upon various power discourses present in manage- ment and social sciences literature and empirical data gathered from two case studies of professional accounting firms to examine whether the notion of democratic knowledge generating environments is realistic. According to Lukes' and Gramsci (1971), it is possible to shape the cognitions, perceptions, and preferences of individuals to shape and control the interests of one group over the others. Foucault (1977) discusses the various mechanisms through which such form of power can be implemented. He also develops Bentham's panopticon, the examina...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Management
  • Flexible work arrangements
  • Flexible working
  • New ways of working
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved