6.nóv-Neoliberalism and Neocolonialism in Organisations and Management

Neoliberalism in Organisations and Management

• Neoliberalism is an approach to economics and politics that focuses on free markets, competition, private businesses and individual responsibility. In organisations, it means that business values such as profit, efficiency, productivity and competition become more important.

• Organisations increasingly use performance targets and measurements to control how people work. Employees are expected to take responsibility for their own success, while teamwork and shared goals can become less important.

• In organisation and management studies, neoliberalism helps explain why many organisations are starting to work more like businesses, even when making money is not their main purpose.

Neoliberalism in Academia – Fleming (2020)

• Fleming looks at how universities and business schools have become more like private companies. They are increasingly run through management hierarchies, competition, performance targets and measurable results.

• Students are treated as customers, while academics are treated as employees who must constantly show how productive they are. Universities focus on rankings, research publications, funding and performance measurements rather than only education and knowledge.

• This creates a conflict because traditional academic values include freedom, independent thinking, critical discussion and cooperation. These values do not always fit with the competitive and business-focused approach of modern universities.

Alienation in Academia

Alienation means feeling disconnected from something that should give you meaning or satisfaction. Fleming uses Marx's idea of alienation to explain how academics become disconnected from their work because of the way universities are managed.

1. Alienation from collegial self-governance: Academics have less influence over decisions in their universities. Management makes more decisions from the top, leaving academics with less control over their workplace.

2. Alienation from research: Research becomes more about publishing in important journals, getting funding and meeting targets than exploring interesting ideas and producing useful knowledge.

3. Alienation in the classroom: Students are treated as customers, and teaching is increasingly judged through student satisfaction surveys. Keeping students happy can become more important than helping them think critically and learn.

4. Self-alienation: Academics are expected to follow business values such as competition, efficiency and productivity, even when these go against their own personal and professional values.

Responses to Alienation

• Fleming describes different ways academics react to these conditions. Some give up and accept the business-focused system. Others hide their real opinions and pretend to agree with management. Some leave their universities because they no longer feel connected to academic life.

• He argues that individuals cannot solve this problem on their own. Academics need to work together to challenge the system and take back some control over their universities.

• Dissensus means allowing and encouraging disagreement instead of expecting everyone to agree. Fleming argues that universities should let people question decisions, challenge management and express different opinions. This is important for academic freedom and democratic organisations.

Durkheim in the Neoliberal Organisation – Courpasson, Younes & Reed (2021)

• The authors use the ideas of sociologist Émile Durkheim to explain how neoliberal organisations affect relationships between employees and how people can create solidarity and resist management.

• Neoliberal organisations encourage individual competition, personal responsibility and performance. This weakens relationships between employees because people are encouraged to focus on their own success instead of working towards shared goals.

• However, the authors argue that people still need relationships and shared values. Even in competitive organisations, employees can come together, support each other and resist management practices.

Solidarity and Anomie

• Solidarity means that people share common values, goals and responsibilities. It creates a feeling of belonging and encourages people to work together and support each other.

• Anomie describes a situation where shared values and social rules become weaker. People lose their sense of community and may feel isolated, confused or disconnected from their work.

• Neoliberalism can create anomie because it encourages individualism and weakens relationships between employees. When people are pushed to compete instead of cooperate, it becomes harder to build trust and solidarity.

The Conflict Between Neoliberalism and Traditional Work Values

• The authors argue that organisations have not completely replaced older ways of working. Instead, modern organisations often combine traditional values of cooperation with neoliberal business practices. This creates different ideas about what good work actually means.

• For example, a nurse might believe that good work means spending enough time with patients and giving them proper care. However, management might focus on reducing costs and treating more patients in less time.

• Employees therefore face a conflict between their professional values and what the organisation expects from them. This can create frustration and lead to resistance.

Resistance and the Zone of Tolerance

• Employees and middle managers resist when management demands go beyond their zone of tolerance. This means that rules or expectations become so unacceptable that employees are no longer willing to follow them without questioning them.

• Resistance can come from personal and professional values rather than a desire for personal benefits. Employees may resist because they believe management decisions harm the quality of their work or go against what they believe is right.

• Middle managers are especially important because they often face pressure from senior management while also understanding the everyday problems employees experience.

Enclaves of Dissidence and Infra-political Resistance

• Enclaves of dissidence are informal groups where people come together to question how an organisation works and find better or different ways of doing things.

• Infra-political resistance means small, quiet and often hidden ways of resisting management. These actions happen outside official organisational structures.

• For example, managers might secretly work together to avoid unrealistic targets, protect employees or maintain professional standards despite pressure from senior management.

• These actions are not necessarily about destroying or changing the whole organisation. They are often about protecting what employees believe is important and making sure that work is still done properly.

Friendship and Community as Resistance

• The authors argue that friendship, trust and relationships between colleagues can also become forms of resistance.

• When employees support each other, they create solidarity and feel less alone. These relationships allow people to share their problems, work together and protect their values.

• Durkheim believed that communities could help people overcome anomie. In the same way, the authors argue that solidarity can grow even in organisations that encourage individual competition.

• Main argument: Neoliberalism weakens solidarity, but the isolation and frustration it creates can also bring people together. Resistance does not always have to be open or aggressive. It can happen through friendship, cooperation and small acts of support.

Neocolonialism in Organisations and Management

• Neocolonialism means that Western countries continue to have power and influence over other societies without directly ruling them as colonies.

• According to Banerjee and Linstead (2004), this influence can continue through politics, economics and culture. Western countries and institutions can maintain power by deciding which knowledge is important, how other cultures are understood and whose opinions are taken seriously.

• In organisation and management studies, neocolonialism appears when Western management theories are treated as correct for everyone, while Indigenous knowledge is understood through Western ideas.

• This means that even research that seems to respect other cultures can continue unequal power relationships.

Banerjee and Linstead (2004) – Neocolonialism in Indigenous Management

• Banerjee and Linstead criticise an article by Whiteman and Cooper (2000), which looks at Indigenous knowledge about nature and what Western organisations could learn from it.

• Their main argument is that Western researchers can continue colonial ways of thinking by taking Indigenous knowledge out of its original context and explaining it through Western management ideas.

Ecological Embeddedness – Whiteman and Cooper (2000)

• Ecological embeddedness describes how closely a manager is connected to the natural environment.

• Whiteman and Cooper studied a Cree beaver trapper in northern Quebec. They argued that Indigenous ways of understanding nature could teach Western managers how to take better care of the environment.

• Ecological embeddedness includes four main ideas:

  1. Feeling personally connected to the land.

  2. Respecting nature and believing in giving something back to it.

  3. Actively learning about and observing the natural environment.

  4. Being physically present and involved in the natural environment.

• The researchers believed that Western managers could learn from Indigenous relationships with nature because modern organisations often see the environment mainly as something that can be used for economic gain.

Banerjee and Linstead's Critique

1. Romanticising Indigenous people

• Whiteman and Cooper present Indigenous people as naturally living in harmony with nature. This creates an overly simple picture of Indigenous cultures and makes it seem as if traditional lifestyles are more authentic than modern ones. However, Indigenous cultures are not stuck in the past. They change and adapt, just like Western societies.

2. Ignoring colonial history

• The Cree have experienced colonialism, been forced away from their land and lost parts of their traditional territories. Banerjee and Linstead argue that these experiences are important for understanding their relationship with nature. By focusing mainly on their environmental practices, Whiteman and Cooper do not give enough attention to the history and political problems that have affected the Cree community.

3. Appropriating Indigenous knowledge

• Western researchers take Indigenous practices and explain them using Western management ideas. For example, they compare the Cree practice of observing and learning from the land with the Western management technique called management by walking around. Although these practices might look similar, they have very different meanings and cultural backgrounds. The comparison makes Indigenous knowledge seem simpler and turns it into a management technique that Western organisations can copy.

4. Treating Western knowledge as universal

• Banerjee and Linstead argue that Western researchers often assume that their own way of understanding the world is the normal or correct one. Indigenous knowledge is then judged using Western ideas instead of being understood from its own cultural perspective. This creates an unequal relationship because Western researchers get to decide what Indigenous knowledge means and how it should be used.

The Representation of the Other

• The Other refers to people or cultures that are presented as different from the main Western perspective.

• Banerjee and Linstead argue that Western researchers often create an image of Indigenous people based on their own ideas and interests instead of understanding how these communities see themselves. This can lead to stereotypes and overly romantic pictures of other cultures.

• They also connect this to Spivak's concept of the subaltern. The subaltern refers to groups that have little power to speak for themselves or have their voices taken seriously within powerful systems.

• The authors argue that the Cree trapper can only speak through the researcher's interpretation. Even though his words are included in the research, the Western researchers still control the story and decide what his words mean.

• In other words, Indigenous people may be included in academic research, but they do not necessarily have control over how their knowledge and experiences are presented.

Knowledge Production and Power

• Banerjee and Linstead argue that producing knowledge about other cultures is never completely neutral.

• Researchers decide what questions to ask, what information to include and how to explain their findings. This gives them power over how the people they study are presented.

• Even theories that try to challenge power and inequality can ignore colonialism and the way Western knowledge continues to dominate research.

• The authors argue that universities and academic institutions can also continue neocolonial power because Western researchers and universities often decide which types of knowledge are accepted and considered important.

• This also connects to Galit Ailon's (2008) criticism of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Hofstede's theory explains cultural differences using categories developed from a Western research perspective. This can make cultures seem simpler than they really are and treat Western ideas as the standard.

Reflexivity and Responsible Research

• Reflexivity means that researchers think critically about their own position, beliefs, assumptions and influence on their research.

• Banerjee and Linstead argue that researchers need to understand their own power and question whether they are explaining other cultures through Western ideas. They suggest that Indigenous communities should have more control over research about them. Their knowledge should not simply be collected and used by Western researchers or organisations.

• The authors use Kaupapa Māori research as an example. This is a research approach developed by Māori communities in New Zealand. It is based on Māori values and knowledge and aims to make sure research is done by, with and for Māori people.

• This gives Indigenous communities more control over what is researched, how their knowledge is explained and who benefits from the research.

• Main argument: Research should not simply take Indigenous knowledge and use it to improve Western management. Indigenous perspectives should be respected in their own right, and researchers should question the idea that Western knowledge is the correct way of understanding the world.