Aktouf 1992

Management and Theories of Organizations in the 1990s: Toward a Critical Radical Humanism?
Author(s): Omar Aktouf

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 407-431
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258717 .
Accessed: 08/05/2014 18:45
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 support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? Academy of Management Review

1992, Vol. 17, No. 3, 407-431.
MANAGEMENTAND THEORIESOF
ORGANIZATIONSIN THE 1990s: TOWARDA
CRITICALRADICALHUMANISM?
OMARAKTOUF
lcole des Hautes etudes Commerciales,
affiliated with the University of Montreal
The author argues that the present mainstream writings on, and debates about "new" ideas of management and theories of organization, lack adequate theoretical assumptions and background. He proposes that those who question the future and efficiency of Westem
organizations need to rely more on a radical-humanistic and neoMarxist conceptualization than on the functionalistic tradition. Therefore, management theorists and practitioners should integrate such a
concept in order to better understand how to transform the passiveobedient Taylorist employee into an active-cooperative one. To
achieve a truly renewed formof management, researchers must adopt
a global view of humankind, in order to give workers a significant
measure of control over their own environments and working conditions.
Not a day goes by now without the publication of books, articles, and
pamphlets that show that we are living in a period when human activity
and progress are being seriously questioned. The era of certainty seems to
be over, and many people watch with consternation and anxiety as "good
management," wealth, productivity, and economic efficiency lose ground
to the degradation of the quality of life and nature.
An abundant literature perceives rich Western countries as being faced
with growing problems in the areas of productivity and industrial efficiency,
while Japan and other Pacific Rim countries are making great strides in this
respect. In the wake of these writings, we should also consider the enormous environmental costs that Western businesses must add to their already declining profit margins. Because of their obsessive commitment to
short-term profits, financially minded Western managers are being charged
with myopic negligence, if not outright recklessness (Brown, 1990; Cans,
1990; Chanlat & Dufour, 1985; Dumont, 1988; Etzioni, 1989; Julien, 1990;Lovelock, 1979; Mintzberg, 1989; Mitroff & Pauchant, 1990; Morgan, 1986; Olive,
1987; Pestel, 1988; Solomon & Hanson, 1985).
The present reflection springs from my growing difficulty, as a management researcher, consultant, and teacher, with the mass of writings that
The author would like to express his gratitude to Professors Didier Van den Hove, Richard
Dery, Allain Joly, and Thierry Pauchant for reading and commenting on this text, as well as to
Andre Cyr for his editorial assistance with the final version of this article.
407

408
Academy of Management Review
July
claim to "revolutionize" management and organizational theories. After a

second, more discerning, look at the implications, real scope, and limits of
these writings, I believe it is necessary to turn to concepts that are traditionally quite foreign to management scholars: radicalism, radical humanism,
and a dialectico-conflictual vision. These are notions from a critical or Marxist tradition, and they do not usually fit into the field of consensual functionalism (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, Chapter 5).
We are faced with an interesting paradox because the leading proponents of management and organization theory (e.g., Crozier, 1989; Mintzberg, 1989; Peters & Waterman, 1982), who have called for a thorough
reevaluation of traditional Western management practices, apparently
have not seen the need to review the basic conceptual and ideological
foundations on which these practices have been built. Therefore, I would
like to address the specific question of the required changes in these conceptual and ideological frameworks.
I would like to show why-after a hiatus following works such as those
of Baran and Sweezy (1966), Braverman (1974), Buroway (1979), Pfeffer
(1979), Silverman (1971), Nord (1974), and Benson (1977)-it still seems necessary, if not inevitable, to turn to the framework and relevant concepts of
more radical, and even Marxist, theories in order for researchers to understand what is actually happening in management and to find ways of opening new perspectives.
What are the deeper implications of the present convergence of these
"second wind" writings toward a central credo: the determining role of
human beings, their "actualization," their "cohesiveness," their "commitment," their "mobilization," and so forth? (What I call second wind is essentially the movement underway since the early 1980s, which tends to rework
managerial theories and practices in response to new rules of productivity,
such as those demonstrated by Japan.) In short, is not the present goal to
develop a "more human" firm? But what kind of humanism is suggested? In
the following section, I will explain the terms humanism and radical humanism, but for now I invite the reader to understand humanism as the
simple fact of centering attention and debate on the "person," his or her
deeds, sense of self, and pivotal role in all organized activities.
CURRENTREFORMISTMANAGERIAL
DEBATES:A DWARFED
(RADICAL)HUMANISM?
A quick glance at the most influential managerial writings since the end
of the 1970s clearly shows that theory is turning in circles within the traditional framework of utilitarian functionalism and neoclassical economic
thought (e.g., Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Caille, 1989; Chanlat & Seguin, 1987;
Etzioni, 1989; Perrow, 1986). Japan's sweeping conquest of world markets
seems mainly responsible for the debates heralding this era of management
theory (Lee, 1980; Ouchi, 1981; Pascale & Athos, 1981; Peters & Waterman,
1982).

1992
Aktouf
409
Corporate culture is one of the favorite themes in the criticism of traditional management. A product of the very first attempts to understand the
Japanese model, this concept has enjoyed a popularity that was publicized
by the best-selling book, In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman, 1982).
Thus, a new idea of management was launched. In this case, the manager
was asked to become a hero, a creator of myths and values, a catalyst for
the constellation of symbols to mobilize an enthusiastic industrial work force
galvanized for productivity and unflagging performance (Kilman, Saxton, &
Serpa, 1985; Peters & Austin, 1985; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Waterman,
1987). The other theme, which is considered to complement the first, is that
of total quality. This too refers to Japan, via quality circles, zero stock systems, and zero faults of just-in-time production (Burrell & Morgan, 1979;
Crosby, 1979; Duncan, 1974; Juran & Gryna, 1980).
Most of the recent bestsellers in the field of management have essentially combined the themes of corporate culture and management by quality. We have seen the repetition of themes such as "team spirit," "shared
values," and "common project" and the mention of groups such as "quality
circles" (Archier & Serieyx, 1984; Crozier, 1989; DePree, 1989; Peters, 1987;
Scherkenbach, 1988; Serieyx, 1989). Grafted onto these themes have been
the fringe issues of ecology and ethics but, above all, a concern to advocate
management styles fostering cohesiveness, complicity, initiative, and creativity at all levels. It is expected that this will be done by revalorizing
human capital. It appears that common values, team spirit, initiative, collaboration, equity, quality, morality, and honesty are the compulsory
means to that end.
Actually, almost all the authors of recent management bestsellers either explicitly or implicitly suggest that the factors of industrial success
changed nature in changing camp. The change of camp is, of course, the
fact that Japan has somehow replaced the United States. The change in
nature refers to the new management principles and criteria underlying
performance and total quality. Up until the end of the 1970s, a firm's success
depended on meeting management production targets, with ever greater
speed and in large quantities. Combined with planned obsolescence, this
philosophy inherited from Taylorism and Fordism would ensure lasting success to firms that first gained control of a product or range of products with
which they could then flood the market. Managers and their theories were
thus harnessed to the task of developing techniques and instruments that
would help production move faster and faster at the plant. Creativity, initiative, and conceptualization were the sphere of specialists in noble R&D
and planning departments. The rest of the firm was there to understand and
execute orders as diligently and obediently as possible. The ideal employee
was of course the "right person at the right place," executing plans developed by people hired and paid to be intelligent thinkers: management
analysts and planners. In that context, the main problem of managers and
their theorists was to find the means to mobilize and stimulate people to do
work that specialization, technical division of work, and cost-cutting con-

410
July
cerns had rendered more and more dull and meaningless. An eloquent
example of this are the hundreds of posts defined as suitable for the mentally and physically handicapped by Henry Ford, I, and his organizational
engineers in setting up the assembly line for the Model T, especially since
the logic at work was that "a portion of a man would be paid a portion of
salary" (Toffler, 1980: 71; Sievers, 1986a).
With the economic success of the Japanese (and also, though on different bases, the Germans and Swedes), other concepts and factors of success
began to surface. The objectives are no longer to make products faster and
faster at the lowest cost but to produce them better, more "creatively," and
more reliably. The era of quality has been extended to the business firm;
now, all employees must be active and intelligent participants. Yet traditional management is not prepared for this change. And, in a more serious
vein, management lacks the conceptual and theoretical means to grasp the
magnitude of coming upheavals. Straitjacketed in traditional theory, solidly
anchored in functionalism and the ideology of consensus, many management theorists cannot see that such dramatic shifts in the factors of success
require an equally dramatic shift in management philosophy and in the
conception of work and the worker. There can be no common measure
between the employee who is expected to "do more faster and faster" in
passive obedience and the employee from whom management expects
constant initiative and creativity. We may even wonder if the latter employee can be "managed" at all. Yet we have witnessed a proliferation of
new "how tos": how to construct a "good corporate culture," how to "manage symbols," how to generate and distribute "good values," how to create
"champions" and other "skunkworks" (term used by Peters [1987] to mean
the kind of hero/champion who is bold and maverick enough to be a standard bearer for the passion of excellence).
However, we have yet to see all the members of Western business firms
miraculously stand as one in an organization imbued with dialogue, enthusiasm, complicity, and mutualism. No sweeping analysis is needed to
realize the cruel lack of an adequate theoretical framework. For almost a
century, functional-consensus theories have been masking the welter of
conflicts and contradictions undermining both the discipline and practice of
management.
Before engaging in a more direct analysis of this conceptual mask and
of certain theoretical discrepancies between the problems posed and the
solutions proposed, I would like the reader to take a closer look at the main
themes and actors appearing in the quest for a more humanized firm.
If there is, in fact, a major point of convergence for the many streams of
this quest, it would be the central importance of the human person or personal attitudes and behavior at work. No matter the trend or topic: corporate
culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982);
actualization of human intelligence and resources (Crozier, 1989; Peters &
Austin, 1985; Waterman, 1987);total quality and the revival of the work ethic

1992
Aktouf
411
(Burr, 1984; Juran & Gryna, 1980; Mintzberg, 1989; Peters & Austin, 1985);the
workplace as a place for dialogue and sharing (DePree, 1989; Peters, 1987;
Peters & Austin, 1985; Weitzman, 1984); or the recent discussion of the misdeeds of most Western managers, tainted as they are with economism,
shortsightedness, utilitarianism, and mechanistic technicism (Etzioni, 1989;
Minc, 1990; Mintzberg, 1989), what stands out most clearly is a persistent call
to put the human element first. But what human element? Are we speaking
in terms of a holistic vision of humankind, or of a fragmentary perception of
one of its aspects? Not one of these writings mentions the concern for a
"global theory of humankind." Who is this person that we want to actualize,
liberate, and acculturate? To whom do we want to restore meaning in the
workplace? With whom do we want to share? Is it the person we no longer
want to treat like an instrument of short-term profits? This person is, in fact,
constantly implied; he/she is considered a given. (As Nord [1974] rightly
pointed out, Maslow [1954, 1969] and Argyris [1957] are almost the only
mainstream writers on management to show any real concern for a "nonindustrial" definition of the "Man." But they are scarcely ever mentioned.) It
is as if we need only call on this person and tell him or her that we
earnestly want him or her to embrace the right culture and symbols, to join
the team, and become a champion. It is as if there were no need to have a
clearer idea of the reasons, events, and circumstances that might bring
about such a metamorphosis. Obviously, such clarity can be gained only if
we are willing to take the point of view of the employee who is, after all, the
"human element" that these theories want to promote. Thus, it is necessary
to construct a vision of the person other than that conveyed by the theoretical framework to be overcome.
There is a clear need to abandon management based on authority, on
an order imposed by the organization, on the successive waves of scientism
that have invaded the field (e.g., Taylorism, behavioral sciences, decision
making, management information systems, office systems, and robotics).
The solution is to open the way for managerial practices that will permit
development of the employee's desire to belong and to use his or her intelligence to serve the firm.
Such practices will never be conceived unless radical questions are
asked about what, until now, has apparently been the major stumbling
block: the conception (and treatment) of the worker as an instrument of
production, as some sort of "needs-driven mechanism," as a rational and
avid maximizer of profits, as a resource to be exploited and monitored, as a
cost to be controlled and minimized.
For example, advocates of theories of renewal and second wind give
no thought to a theory of the person which, if joined to a new theory of the
organization, might facilitate the advent of an employee who is willing to
adopt corporate goals. This is where such theories fall short. Hence, it now
seems imperative to find a transition from a form of management in which
the employee is seen as a passive cog, to one in which he or she becomes

412
July
an active and willing accomplice. This almost complete reversal of roles

might lead to the heights of liberation or to the pit of alienation and exploitation. But recognition of the need to "promote" the worker (forcibly implying
more respect for his or her interests and autonomy), even if from a strictly
managerial and economic perspective, is, I believe, already a big step
forward. The worker's increased autonomy is inconceivable without some
sharing of power, of management and decision-making rights, and of rights
over means, profits, and so forth.
Another limitation of the reformed managerial view of the 1980s is the
obstinate refusal to question the grounds on which work relations are actually experienced in firms. This is the sleight-of-hand attempted by the
prevailing trend of symbolism and corporate culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982;
Kilman et al., 1985; Peters & Waterman, 1982), the objective that allows the
worker to appropriate the firm symbolically without touching anything on
the material level, that is, without sharing profits, power, property, or decisions. (For a theoretical and practical analysis of this sleight-of-hand, see
Aktouf, 1990.) Peters and Waterman (1982) described what firms need to
excel-to
make each employee a living, breathing, ambassador for his or
her firm. This goal is praiseworthy if we recognize that an ambassador must
be entrusted with certain discretionary powers and freedom of action and
that he or she is often authorized to act as a plenipotentiary.
Most proponents of the new management trends focus current discussions and concerns on the employee (human capital and resource). This is
a sure sign of rekindled interest in the human element. However, by implicitly maintaining the status quo in all that concerns power, control of
profits, and the division of labor, the new trend is a false and stunted humanism. How can employees be expected to participate in shared values,
to achieve personal success, and to express and liberate themselves, if
managers are often explicitly designated the quasi-unique artisans of liberation? Moreover, today such liberation is most often envisioned as the
result of a new culture that is bestowed, organized, and remote-controlled
by a throng of leaders, visionaries, cheerleaders, and entrepreneurs (Mintzberg, 1973; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1985; Waterman, 1987). This
notion does not deny the obviously determining role of managers, but it
does underline the fact that this role must consist, essentially, in a radical
change in everyone s concrete working conditions. A culture of synergy and
collaboration-characterized
by convergence, closeness, and sharing
must be injected into actual practice.
However, today there are several authors, notably among the Europeans, who are proposing different and more authentically humanistic avenues of research and action. These authors perhaps offer a bridge between
the aspirations of gurus like Peters and Waterman and work relations
founded on more radical-humanistic views. But, first, it is important to understand what is meant by humanism and radical humanism. Also, what
are the promises and lacunae of these movements that seem to act as
"bridges"?

1992
Aktouf
413
THERADICAL-HUMANISTIC
POSITIONAND SOME
PROMISINGTRENDS
Referring to Burrell and Morgan (1979), my idea of radical humanism is
to select from each of today's major schools of thought what would appear
to be convergent, complementary, and enlightening in the difficult and
complex quest for a more human conception of "man." First, this quest for
humanism I believe is inexorably linked to radicalism, in its guise of probing
investigation and return to the wellspring and root of things (historicism,
diachrony, structure). Second, as a quest, it is certainly as old as rational
"man." Thus, the searcher must accept the dilemmas and risks of sifting and
choosing, on the frontiers of what is random, conventional, and a matter of
personal taste. Finally, in this quest, certain authors (such as Marx, Sartre,
Freud, and Evans-Pritchard) must be dealt with.
Underlying Assumptions
The following elements are fundamental to the position I intend to adopt
in the present discussion:
1. The first element is human beings as destined, that is, owing their
unique status to their "self-consciousness," which forces them to search for
what will liberate them, emancipate them (from all sorts of obstacles), restore them, and lead them to fulfill their vocations: They are endowed with
consciousness, right judgment, and free will, and they aspire to their own
elevation. Thus, people are "generic beings" who create their own milieu,
their society, and, thus, themselves. The humanism meant here is wholly
centered on the person, on the human meaning (for and of "man") of what
is undertaken. I thus borrow the following definition from Fromm (1961: 147):
[Humanism is] a system centered on man, his integrity, his development, his dignity, his liberty. On the principle that man is
not a means to reach this or that end but that he is himself the
bearer of his own end. Not only on his capacity for individual
action, but also his capacity for participationin history, and on
the fact that each man bears within himself humanity as a
whole.
2. A long tradition-from Aristotle (the famous "man is a political animal") to Weber (the central idea of going from an organic to a mechanical
society, from oikos to bureaucracy) by way of Marx (key role of social relations, class phenomena) -makes people beings that are fundamentally defined by community, society, and their relations with others. The relations in
and through which people live, help them to construct and grasp their sense
of self (which make them the ground and condition of self-realization). What
interests me here is not whether Aristotle, Marx, and Weber diverge or
converge as theoreticians, but, instead, the fact that they all recognized
"mman's"
nature is undeniably social and community-oriented.
3. Given that the main focus of this present discussion is the person at
work, the most compelling system, thought, and author on the subject are

414
July
apparently Marxism and Karl Marx. However, it is not easy to find one's
way, clearly and simply, through what countless Marxian schools and allegiances have stated or held on humanism. Therefore, I must add a few
essential theoretical precautions.
Based on several well-known specialists on the subject (Calvez, 1970;
Fromm, 1961; Gramsci, 1971; Heilbroner, 1970, 1980; Kolakowski, 1968, 1978;
Lucaks, 1971)-while not minimizing the nuances and sometimes major
differences between them-I can at least justify the decision to consider the
work of Marx as a whole, the so-called "mature" works (especially Capital)
being framed by and rooted in early works (particularly the Manuscripts of
1844). I agree with Kolakowski that "all Marx's critical writings (the 1844
Manuscripts; Misery of Philosophy from 1847; Work, Salary and Capital from
1849; Grundisse from 1857-1858; Contribution to the Critic of PoliticalEconomy from 1859 and, finally, Capital) are just so many more and more
refined versions of a single line of thought" (1987: 376). But Kolakowski also
added that although "it is a fact that Marxian terminology and expression
changed between 1844 and 1867," the driving unity of Marx's thought can be
found in the unrelenting search for the conditions dehumanizing man and
for possible ways of restoring more human conditions (1987: 377).
in light of Grundisse-that Capital
I am inclined to believe-especially
can be considered, at various (more structural) levels, as the end of the
quest that was begun with the Manuscripts, a quest initially more normative
and anthropological:
This must only be seen as a change in terminology and not a
change in content, because the whole process in which human
work and the products of this workare alienated fromworkersis
described in Capital: . . . the subsequent description in Capital
presents us with the same phenomenon that we firstdiscovered

in the Manuscripts. (Kolakowski,1987:381)
I consider the key element for discussion in the radical-humanist and
neo-Marxist framework is the question of alienation, that is, of alienated
work. I will return to these definitions, but at this point let us remember that
people are most in danger of "ruin," of "losing themselves" (alienation),
through the very act by which they can express their generic essence: the
act of work. The heart of the process of dehumanizing "mann"is alienation
through work. This idea explains the primordial importance of what takes
place, concretely, in the work process. In this process, the workers alienate
themselves by selling their capacity for work (and not their work, which
would be a creative act) while contributing to the development and the
consolidation of forces (merchandise, profits, capital) which are exterior,
foreign, and, in the final analysis, hostile to them and, thus, even more
"dehumanizing." The finality pursued is no longer the person and what is
most human in him or her (e.g., satisfaction of needs through utility value)
but the "unlimited growth of exchange value" (Kolakowski, 1987: 280).

1992
Aktouf
415
In sum, my use of neo-Marxist radical humanism is this vision of people

slipping into "self-estrangement" because of what they are led to do and
experience as social and economic beings. Therefore, I consider complementary, rather than mutually exclusive, analyses using concepts from
Marx's early writings (consciousness, alienation, criticism) or from later ones
(structure, contradiction, crises). In fact, in light of specialists already cited,
I find that it is enough to know on which "level" of analysis one is operating.
Basically, the alienated person is neither different, nor cut off from the "proletarian" caught up in production relations that are structurally, materially,
and historically determined and dialectically inscribed in a spiral of contradictions. In other words, with Kolakowski and "against" Althusser, I feel
justified in considering the scientific and positivist Marx of Capital to be a
continuation (enlarged and deepened by more structural instruments) of the
young, rather anthropological and philosophical Marx of the Manuscripts.
It is altogether possible to see in this evolution neither denial, nor epistemological break, nor change of object, but more simply a shift in approach
to the same set of problems: recognition of "man's" dehumanization, search
for the processes and mechanisms of this dehumanization, and investigation of more concrete means of overcoming it.
4. Finally, I would plead for a humanist position that tends (necessarily)
toward a theory of the subject. The young Marx, at this point, can be supplemented by Sartre's writings (1948, 1966, 1976) in which the notion of "bad
faith" joins those of "false consciousness" and "alienation" (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, Chapter 8) and where the human being is, by definition and
necessity, a being whose destiny is meaning, intentions, and projectsthus, by nature, a person is involved in his or her being and in his or her
becoming (to which alienation is an obstacle): a subject whose being is
meaning and which has need of meaning.
Researchers in a certain social area of anthropology, represented by,
among others, Evans-Pritchard (1950), have paid specific attention to the
theory of the subject and the question of its bases. In these writings, it is
specifically stated that human beings are definitely not like mechanisms or
organisms: They are ruled by reasons, feelings, and choices and not by
"causes" (unless, to repeat, they are forced, other-determined, or alienated,
in which case there is no longer a subject but something objectified, reified,
an instrument). Thus, I believe there is reason to consider Evans-Pritchard's
contribution as a possible means of completing the bases of a theory of
disalienation.
These are the main points of the radical-humanist position I intend to
adopt. In a following section, I will explain how it can be used to better
understand the intent of contemporary management and organizational
theories. At this point, I would like to direct attention to certain other works
that seem to add some tendencies of a more radical-humanistic "stamp" to
the picture. Depending on the schools and authors, this stamp will be more
or less explicit, more or less avowed, more or less strongly advocated.
In the prevailing trend for managers (that I have identified as the best-

416
July
sellers claiming to completely reform management), more radical voices

are sometimes heard. Thus, Peters (1987), Serieyx (1989), Waterman (1987),
and Mintzberg (1989) have used words calling for a revolution; management by men who are still men; suppression of managerial rules that degrade people; liberation of intelligence from the grip of the inhuman Taylorian machine; disregard of now ossified top-down hierarchical authority;
renunciation of a management which renders society unmanageable.
However, as Toffler (1986) suggested, these voices pile up criticism without
being radical, for no challenge of basic premises and finalities is actually
proposed, as if one were dealing with some circumstantial breakdown in a
system that otherwise should be preserved.
Other works seem to make a more frontal attack on certain problems,
such as flagrant disregard for the human aspect of the enterprise. A thematic grouping would give the following (obviously nonexhaustive) enumeration:
1. Challenge to the established order, unilateral power, corporate monopoly of profits, instrumental conception of the employee . . . as so many
obstacles to collective creativity, adaptation, innovation, "creative deviance" (Atlan, 1972, 1985; Clegg, 1975; DePree, 1989; Morgan, 1986; Orgogozo & Serieyx, 1989; Varela, 1980; Villette, 1988; Weitzman, 1984).
2. Ardent call to arms against the fragmentation of work, against the
destruction of its meaning, against the overspecialization and subdivision of
tasks, against disregard for man's need for symbols . . . all reasons why
work is becoming more and more alienating, dulling, uninteresting and a
source of suffering and tensions (Beynon, 1973; Braverman, 1974; Chanlat &
Dufour, 1985; Dejours, 1980, 1990; Pfeffer, 1979; Sievers, 1986a; Terkel, 1972;
Turner, 1990).
3. Call for discussion of the relation between language and work, the
place and role of dialogue, the possibility for self-expression, pathologies of
communication caused by violence to homo loquens in the industrial universe ... all this inspired, in good part, by the work of the Palo Alto School
(Aktouf, 1986b, 1989c; Chanlat & Bedard, 1990; Clegg, 1990; Crozier, 1989;
Girin, 1982, 1990).
4. Call for recognition that managerial conceptions and practices foil
any real possibility of giving "man" the status of subject, that of an actor
personally and ontologically authorized to identify with and question the
firm, to reappropriate the acts he or she is assigned to do, to experience
them as an expression of his or her own desires (Chanlat & Dufour, 1985;
Crozier, 1989; Dejours, 1980, 1990; Pages, Bonetti, & de Gaulejac, 1984;
Sainsaulieu, 1983, 1987; Sievers, 1986a).
5. Reconsideration of the relationship to time in industrial work, denunciation of the suffering and violence (physical and symbolical) inflicted on
workers by imposing a dehumanizing pace and fragmentation of time (Gasparini, 1990; Hassard, 1988, 1990; Kamdem, 1990).
6. Denunciation of a certain lack of ethics and honesty toward employees, of the damage done by monopolizing the fruits of worker commitment

1992
Aktouf
417
and productivity, of the selfish and short-term behavior of managers . .. all

of which prevent the employee from living and being treated as a human
person (Etzioni, 1989; Olive, 1987; Packard, 1989; Solomon & Hansen, 1985).
7. Challenge to the narrow economism and utilitarianism with which
prevailing managerial theories and practices are imbued and which turn
managers and corporations into cynical predators with almost no consideration or respect for personal integrity and dignity, whether of employees,
consumers, or citizens with the right to a certain quality of life (Caille, 1989;
Etzioni, 1989; Galbraith, 1987; Mitroff & Pauchant, 1990; Monthoux, 1989;
Pfeffer, 1979; Rifkin, 1980).
8. Finally, the more and more persistent call for a kind of epistemological and methodological radicalism highlighting the complex, systemic, and
multidimensional nature of everything that has to do with persons and
groups, including and above all people at work and in organizational life.
The topics include multi- and interdisciplinary approaches, dialectical and
circular causality, self-organization, and general theory of systems (Aktouf,
1989a,b,c; Atlan, 1985; Chanlat et al., 1990; Chanlat & Dufour, 1985; Morgan, 1986; Varela, 1980; Vincent, 1990).
I consider the foregoing to be the most important themes on the more
radical side of current management theories. In the following section, the
ways in which a more humanized firm is desirable, conceivable, and possible (given the radical-humanist position just described and the attempts at
theoretical breakthroughs just enumerated) are discussed.
FIRM:REASONS,CONDITIONS,AND OBSTACLES
THEHUMANIZED
The few theories just mentioned come closest to a movement toward a
more authentic humanization of the firm. To succeed they would need to be
more central to the prevailing trend (almost totally dominated by gurus of
excellence and total quality), to offer concrete solutions to practitioners' productivist concerns, and, finally, to create their own unity. However, they do
head toward a definition of humanism close to the one chosen here because
the human being is finally no longer viewed as a profitable tool but through
the lens of basic disciplines (anthropology, linguistics, etc.), which do not
study "production man" but the person in his or her entirety. A human being
should be considered as inseparable from speech, symbols, meaning, society, emotions, and free will (even if relative) before becoming a resource
for the firm and the "maximum production of exchange value." Such a
person surely comes closer to his or her humanity.
It is important to understand that this movement toward a more human
firm is neither a romantic ideal nor a philanthropic gesture, nor a utopia,
but a necessity. Judging from the persistence of authoritarian management
styles, many practitioners do not seem to understand the imperative need to
step out of the Taylorian rut. The fervent new credos of "revalorization" of
"priceless human capital" are irrefutable evidence of this need: The era of

418
July
"the right man at the right place" is over, and the time has come for the
employee who knows how (and is allowed) to think, to react, to modify, and
so on. The time has come for the employee to do more than the job requires
(especially qualitatively).
This is the type of environment that the much sought-after firm will
build, because such a firm can result only through the combined efforts of
individuals who are driven by the desire to cooperate, and this cooperation
will be expressed through freedom of speech, greater autonomy, equity,
and conviviality of all members. Such a firm will need all the synergy
available from most-if not all-of the minds composing it (including those
of its employees) in order to improve its ability to invent original solutions,
the sole response to the complexity that is recognized as one of the major
challenges facing today's managers (Atlan, 1985; Morgan, 1986; Varela,
1980).
The list could be expanded. But the elements already enumerated
clearly show that there is a call for nothing less than a new type of employee
and new work relations, firms, and management as well.
The employee. The idea of conceiving an adequate theoretical framework suitable to this renewed concern for meaningful work, creativity, partnership, interest and accountability, dialogue, initiative, personal commitment, and so on must first be tempered by an understanding of what has
stood in the way of all these ideas for nearly three centuries. Yet, the theory
of alienated work, if examined, is incontestably the deepest and richest
framework for understanding how to correct the dead end of productivity in
traditional industry. Restoring the meaning of work and allowing the appropriation-commitment sought by corporate culture and total quality depends on nothing less than putting an end to the following four estrangements of alienated work recorded in Marxist tradition: (a) estrangement
from the product-the employee has no control over the process, the reasons, the clients, the profits; (b) estrangement from the act of work-a break
perfected by Taylorism where employees are reduced to muscular or mental stores of energy who accomplish tasks that are never their own but
always dictated and imposed by bosses, assembly-line speed, machines,
corporate goals, and strategies; (c) estrangement from nature-working
hours make time an artificial, saleable product, as opposed to the natural
time of the seasons, the cycle of day and night, and the biological clock,
substituting the satisfaction of natural needs with those dictated by money
and capital, to the detriment of nature itself; (d) estrangement from the
human element-workers
are estranged from their essence as generic beings with the free will to create their own surroundings and themselves, and
they are put in conflict with others who use and exploit them and who
themselves are alienated by the laws of capital.
All these phenomena must be understood when the role of the meaning
of work in stimulating workers' motivation and interest is discussed, because it is these phenomena that have robbed industrial work of its meaning. Restoring meaning to work will mean that managers must acceptafter almost a century of management aimed at negating or masking it-

1992
Aktouf
419
the fact that alienation from work is at the very heart of the problem of the
worker's commitment and motivation (Braverman, 1974; Dejours, 1980;
Pages et al., 1984; Pfeffer, 1979; Sievers, 1986a,b).
Almost all the authors of contemporary management best-sellers agree
that facilitating the development of a new type of employee means the
evolution of a new kind of firm. Whether it is called excellent or third type or
open, it would still be a firm in which relations and the rules of the game will
have changed radically. To rephrase Orgogozo and Serieyx (1989), it is now
really imperative to envision something other than relentless attempts to
influence and change (essentially) only employee behavior, while almost
everything else remains the same. It has now become necessary to change
the rules and the very nature of the power and control that traditions perpetuate in our organizations. After all, what else is being asked if not the
establishment of working conditions that will awaken in the employee the
desire to cooperate, to create? Because such a change must be a lived
experience and it can neither be contrived nor commanded, there is only
one possible solution: Workers must experience their relation to their work
as a real, rather than a formal, appropriation. What they do in the firm must
be experienced as a real extension of themselves, as an occasion for selfexpression as well as for the pursuit and satisfaction of personal desires and
interests that converge with those of the firm. Thus, the firm would become
a place for partnership and dialogue, a workplace no longer run on the
intensive use of work force.
Surprisingly enough, this new trend seems to encompass one of Marx's
most cherished principles: abolition of wages. Whether explicitly or not,
many authors are advocating this principle, most often with reference to
Japanese forms of remuneration (largely tied to corporate profits). This is the
case for Weitzman at the Massachussets Institute of Technology (1984); for
Peters (1987), who calls for profit sharing as part of remuneration; for Perrow
(1979), who writes that control and coercion will be the only ways (more
costly than profitable) to obtain maximum productivity as long as the salary
system is the rule; for Etchegoyen (1990), who feels that salaries turn employees into mercenaries working in soulless enterprises (the "mercenary"
element is seen here as an obstacle to individual commitment-a person no
longer satisfied with doing what is asked, who has neither interest nor
"soul").
At the present time, strong American and European trends are being
shaped that will demand that an organization become a place where the
employee can feel and act as a thinking, speaking, and questioning subject
(Crozier, 1989; Dejours, 1980; Girin, 1990; Morgan, 1986; Sainsaulieu, 1983).
This would be the place where the employee could find his or her essential
availability, interest, and creativity. In other words, these are the conditions
for the advent of vital work (subjective and creative work, capable of constant adaptation and innovation), which Marx recognized as the main characteristic of humanity and which he deplored seeing replaced by dead,
ossified work-that of machines, objective working conditions, maximum
profits, and repetition.

420
July
Unlike Michel (1989), I will not take the risk of talking about the "free
man," for that would suppose the existence of individuals with absolutely
free will-rational,
informed, untrammelled lords of their own destinies.
This can, from all evidence, never be the case, because all choice is a
matter of limited rationalities. Nevertheless, the quest for a more human firm
must include a person who is, relatively speaking, more autonomous, less
managed, and somewhat more powerful. Such a quest is perhaps a step
toward understanding the meaning of being, of projects, and of desire,
which were invoked by Sartre (1948, 1966), Dejours (1980, 1990), and EvansPritchard (1950). The latter notion, in particular, as I previously noted, shows
that human beings are creatures ruled by reasons. It must be admitted that
workers in present-day firms are given few reasons to want to be cooperative and creative (or even simply interested in their work). Evans-Pritchard
also explained why recent theories of motivation fail: In these, human beings are viewed much the same as organisms ("termites," according to
Herzberg, 1980), ruled by quasi-instinctive impulses or external stimuli.
Therefore, the present-day behavioral sciences of organisms must be replaced by a theory that advocates that people must find by themselves and
for themselves reasons for working with more creativity than what is presently being asked of them.
How can researchers hope for such change, unless they question their
own premises? Such radicalism would, for example, require looking beyond the behavior of Japanese, Swedish, and German employees, not, of
course, to lump together the political or social systems, working conditions,
or culture of these three countries; of interest here is that they are constantly
cited as examples of performance and productivity in the search to find the
reasons motivating their performance (reasons linked to job content, relations with management, national social policies, redistribution of national
wealth, and job satisfaction). They also must give up the frantic search for
some super prescription of esoteric management practice behind such performance.
Similarly, this same radicalism would lead theorists to ask "why" the
employee of the traditional Western firm is so little motivated and not "how"
to motivate that person at all costs. Raising the question in this way, as
Sievers (1986a,b) has done, is to question the very meaning of work.
It is, I think, not hard to see that the traditional (functional-pragmatic)
conceptual framework of management does not work well with such questions. Besides, management has always rejected such questions as being
outside of its sphere, considering them, at best, a subject for philosophy, or
some more or less subversive or left-wing sociology.
Is there any hope in finding an answer to the question: Why is the
Western employee so uninterested, unmotivated, and uncommitted when
compared to employees of other countries? without asking the corollary
question: How has the Western world gotten into this situation? The answers
to these questions obviously require some historical investigation, that is, a
reintegration of the diachrony that has been evacuated by managerial

1992
Aktouf
421
functionalism's ahistorical stance. The answers lie in discovering the context

and events surrounding the birth of the 18th-century industrial enterprise
and in realizing that there is a past and a heritage that should be restored,
accepted, and assumed. The birth of industrial enterprise was marked by
violence and suffering: It was a long struggle in which laws were won inch
by inch and terrible clashes took place between workers and bosses in order
to achieve slightly more just and human working conditions (Braverman,
1974; Mantoux, 1959; Neuville, 1976, 1980). We also know that Marx based
his terrifying descriptions of 20th-century working conditions on the reports
of doctors and British government labor inspectors.
These descriptions point to the relevance of the element around which
Marxism has always centered -the analysis of work relations, which is the
original and still rampant contradiction between the interests of bosses and
managers and those of the workers. For the bosses, it was and still is a
matter of making the most profit possible, which is synonymous, among
other things, with setting the lowest possible wages. For the workers, it has
always been a question of fighting back to gain decent working conditions
and wages, which are regularly eroded. (In the December 4, 1989, issue of
Fortune, a section is devoted to what is called the "trust gap." This article
shows that this gap between American workers and managers can be
measured in colossal differences in income gains over the past 10 years.
Also, Voslensky [1980] has shown how, in so-called communist countries,
management levels have siphoned off surplus value, which, surely, neither
resolves the contradictions involved in exploitation of labor, nor bears any
resemblance to Marxist-Leninist theory.) How can management then pretend that there are convergent interests and objectives in the firm, that there
can be a consensus? Management cannot be changed without facing this
contradiction.
Marxism sheds light on the powerful vogue of the management and
organizational sciences in the 20th century by explaining that (because of
labor laws, among other things) industrial capitalism needs to resort to an
ever more finely tuned production of relative surplus value (value obtained
by reducing the work time required through greater productivity resulting
from more discipline and better organization), because it is now very difficult (under pain of sanctions) to achieve absolute surplus value (value obtained by the unilateral power to lengthen the work day and reduce the
value of work). Thus, from management's viewpoint, the 19th century was
the century of absolute surplus value, whereas the 20th century is, at least
in the West, mainly the century of relative surplus value. However, faced
with competition from other countries such as Japan, it is becoming more
and more difficult to obtain relative surplus value solely by organizing and
disciplining labor and by making maximum profit from work time (Braverman, 1974; Clegg & Dunkerley, 1977; Hassard, 1988; Thompson, 1967). The
use of machines and even robots seems to have reached certain limits;
obsolescence of equipment is becoming more and more rapid, and the
human mind's inventiveness and flexibility are more than ever key factors

422
July
in greater profitability. According to Maury (1990), for instance, Japanese

corporations stress the importance of human creativity over robotized automation in their manufacturing operations. This, however, does not imply
that Japanese businesses are in general more humane, but rather that they
make better use of the creative faculties of their employees. Even obtaining
relative surplus value seems to depend more and more on a new attitude on
the part of employees: They must take on the famous role of actively interested agents. And interested employees would embrace the corporate
cause. But is such a change possible with the traditional management theories and spirit of the West? For even the continued exploitation of labor (by
relative surplus value) seems to imply, paradoxically, some kind of commitment from the employee and, thus, greater equity to him or her.
CONCLUSION:NEITHERDICTATORSHIP
OF THEPROLETARIAT
NOR
FUNCTIONALCONSENSUS?
Although in this text I have mainly appealed to a strong neo-Marxist
framework as it relates to radical humanism and sometimes radical structuralism, it has never been my intention to find ways of achieving in the firm
what this framework presents or advocates. Overcoming contradictions,
alienation, power relations, and exploitation was not a part of my objective,
no more than it can be a part of any production system that I now consider
conceivable, so numerous and evolutive are the forms and nature of possible contradictions. On the contrary, I have used the hypotheses and prescriptions that are most popular in management and organizational theories to show that, failing a quantum leap to a conceptual framework more
akin to radical humanism than to functionalism, all these theories and prescriptions would continue to fall short of their goals. I believe that, paradoxically, those managing industrial enterprises will find ways out of a good
number of their present dead ends, by turning to theories inspired by Marx
(theories of alienation, of surplus value, of vital work). Getting out of the
dead ends in question implies some renunciation of power, of propertyrelated rights, of unilateral management "rights," and of exclusive privileges. It also implies moving toward disalienation of work, a finality of
cooperative and shared production, and an organization that fosters commitment and interest through the meaning given to each person's daily
work.
Real and concrete participation in management, in profits, in planning;
workers' greater autonomy and polyvalence; and workers' adequate security are now necessary to end the stagnation of productivity. I am obviously
not so naive as to believe that this will happen by the goodwill of owners
and managers. It will be ever more strongly imposed by counterperformance, bankruptcies, and crises. It will, for many companies, be the price to
pay for survival. Because companies have reached the ultimate limits of
Taylorism, their only way of improving productivity seems to be making
room in the firms for employees to adequately express their personal inter-

1992
Aktouf
423
ests, autonomy, free will, and desires. It is also a difficult path, strewn with
traps, contradictions, and numerous forms of resistance, often deeply rooted
in the unconscious, like those psychic prisons Morgan (1986) mentioned, or
the delusions of immortality with delusions of grandeur referred to by Sievers (1986b) and Kets de Vries and Miller (1984).
To borrow V. De Gaulejac's words (in a presentation before the World
Congress of Sociology, Madrid, July 9-14, 1990), "Today it is as if the 'new
managements' were trying to transform the psychic drives feeding the individual's narcissism into added work and an additional source of relative
surplus value. " Max Pages (1984) spoke about seeking to fuse the ideal of self
with the ideal of the organization. This fusing would, in fact, require other
approaches and theories with regard both to management and organizations. This is what Peters and Waterman and other corporate-culture apostles have begun to propose. But they have acted as if employees were
credulous, naive, and bereft of culture and values, waiting for heroic leaders to instruct them. This whole approach is part of the refusal to make any
analysis in terms of conflict of interests and class conflict. However, it remains a fact that, led by Ouchi, Peters and Waterman, Mintzberg, and so
on, the correct questions are finally being asked, though answers are not
necessarily being sought outside of the usual functional-consensual framework.
Therefore, the new approaches remain inoperative and many organizations are still at a dead end, as many successful management writers
bitterly point out (e.g., Etzioni, 1989; Mintzberg, 1989). This point is precisely
where the neo-Marxist radical-humanistic framework comes in, for it offers
more suitable paths of reflection and understanding. This framework
shows, notably, that the continued increase of relative profit is no longer
compatible with work that is as unilaterally managed and overexploited as
it continues to be in the still mainly Taylorian firms of the West. One of the
centuries-old contradictions of labor relations must be confronted: the conflicting interests of capital and labor. To recognize this contradiction is to lay
the groundwork for promoting labor to a position of active "comanagement" with capital. This is basically what Taylor and Fayol were
seeking, as they spoke of ending the war or making peace between capital
and labor. This is also what current gurus of the new management advocate. (Archier and Serieyx, 1984; Crozier, 1989; DePree, 1989; Weitzman,
1984; and Peters and Austin, 1985, all talk about sharing profits, dialogue,
and community.) But how many bosses, especially in North America, would
be willing to admit that it is not only necessary but also just and legitimate
to share the firm's profits with the employees? While not losing sight of the
fact that profit sharing is not in itself sufficient, or synonymous with a change
in the nature of power or with disalienation, or even less with an end to
exploitation, it surely can be termed more equitable.
There is another particularly destructive contradiction that consists in
wanting change without really changing anything, in wanting to revolutionize without a revolution. (The term revolution is, for example, used by

424
July
Peters [1987] and Crozier [1989] to refer to the changes that must take place
in management today.) From corporate culture to management by symbols;
from champions of the product to total quality, the aim is to change only one
thing: the behavior of employees, with no thought that the context must also
be changed. In this case, employees are constantly being acculturated by
self-cultured leaders, motivated by self-motivated leaders, and mobilized
by self-mobilized managers.
However, though Marx's radical humanism may present an inescapable theoretical framework for constructing the know-how and bases of
change suitable to today's managerial problems, the fact remains that
clinging to the traditional Marxist theory of action (which consists in power
changing place or hands) has proven, from the verdict of history, to be just
as much of a dead end. How then can the transition to more cooperative
and vital work still be made? It can be made by moving toward a form of
organization where candor, symmetry, equity, and sharing would provide
the grounds for humanizing the firm. As Galbraith (1958, 1987) and Heilbroner (1980) reminded us many years after Schumpeter (1942), whereas the
capitalist industrial order has enjoyed and still enjoys enormous and undeniable success, it must also face the equally enormous difficulties that are
the counterpart of its success. This counterpart is now seriously threatening
its survival. Paradoxically, it seems that the much sought after solution may
come through elements stemming from critical and Marxist theories.
Without moving toward any form of "dictatorship by the proletariat" or
any suppression of private property, there still seems to be an inevitable
need to put aside complacent functional-consensual traditions. There are
already concrete examples to follow in North America, quite aside from the
already traditionally known models of Japan, Sweden, and Germany.
Completely innovative forms of organization and management (heterodox,
original, making almost a clean break with the most time-honored Western
managerial traditions) are appearing and are proving to be much more
dynamic and successful than one could have hoped under current circumstances. These examples transform total failure or stagnation into lasting
success. I will mention only two. The first is that of an American firm, the
Johnsonville Sausage Company, which was described in a recent article in
Harvard Business Review: "How I Learned to Let My Workers Lead." In this
article, the author (Stayer, 1990) explained how his company managed to
accomplish a radical turnaround by sharing information with employees at
all levels and by involving them in all major decisions.
The second example is that of a Quebec pulp and paper multinational,
Cascades Inc., which I have studied over the past five years. I will dwell on
this example in greater detail because it has not been previously reported
in English-language publications. Cascades was started from scratch by
three brothers and their father in a small country town in eastern Quebec.
In 1963, they bought an abandoned pulp and paper mill. By 1989, their
business had close to a $1 billion turnover. This spectacular success in-

1992
Aktouf
425
volved the reviving and restoring of a number of bankrupt businesses to top

performance. Some of these businesses were located outside of Quebec,
notably in the United States and France. (It should first be mentioned that
the study of this multinational was based on over 500 days of field work, over
200 in-depth interviews, and investigative visits to 14 plants. The Cascades
group includes 3,000 employees and approximately 30 plants.)
On first visiting a Cascades plant, the outside observer is struck by an
almost total absence of the rationality of classical management that is so
pervasive in the North American milieu: There are no organization charts;
almost no distinctive titles nor official positions; no job descriptions; no time
sheets; at the most, three or four symbolic levels of hierarchy; selfmanagement in everything; no supervisory function or control; systematic
avoidance of hierarchy; direct and informal relations at all levels; frank
exchange at all levels; tolerance of human error; open-book policy on all
information, including financial information; access to executive offices for
all employees; self-managing work teams; universal profit sharing unrelated to individual productivity; supervisory positions abolished at all levels,
and so forth.
Each and every Cascades employee can tell several stories illustrating
the charismatic and generous acts of (the owners) Bernard Lemaire or one
of his brothers. "They care about us and respect us," "they take care of us,"
"they don't think they are better than we are," "they don't think they are
God's gift to the world," and "they know they were born of a mother just like
us." These are typical comments of workers at Cascades.
Yet, if Cascades is measured against the traditional standards of private enterprise, it can be concluded that its management methods have
proven their mettle in all respects: Cascades has consistently achieved profitability levels that compare quite favorably with the pulp and paper industry as a whole and has been able to weather the recession better than most
of its competitors.
These two enterprises share the common essentials of having dramatically "flattened the hierarchical pyramid"; given responsibilities to employees in just about all spheres; and created a context of dialogue, listening,
generalized conviviality, and sharing (e.g., in profits, information, decisions, actions, and management). Cascades is almost in its third generation
of manager-owners and has been enjoying success for more than 30 years;
it won the "Best Company Award" in the midst of the 1978-1984 economic
crisis. The present CEO has a motto known throughout the company: "I am
ready to give up profits to avoid laying off employees." Is there any need to
explain why just about everything is going very well at Cascades (for figures, details, factual data, methodology, see Aktouf, 1989a,b,c, and Aktouf
& Chretien, 1987). Managers at Cascades (like those at Johnsonville Sausage) never tire of repeating that it is because of their policies of candor,
power sharing, autonomy, employee security, and employee sharing that
they can count on productive, alert, interested, and motivated workers. To

426
July
shed theoretical light on such "cases," researchers must turn to a conceptual

framework that is more radical-humanistic (and from certain angles, radical-structuralist) than functionalist (Aktouf, 1990; Aktouf & Chretien, 1987).
In the current recessionary context, we cannot fail to notice how even
blue chip corporations, such as Shell, IBM, and General Motors, resort to
massive layoffs and drastic rationalization programs. In effect, such managerial practices take us back to a very short-term and narrow-minded
functionalist view of the organization. In this article, however, I have tried to
demonstrate that there are serious theoretical considerations as well as
convincing practical examples that should lead us to take a very critical look
at the wisdom and efficiency of this model.
In sum, workers must no longer be considered as cost factors to be
"compressed" or "rationalized," but as allies to be won. Conversely, managers must stop seeing themselves as the only people fit to think, to decide,
and to manage. Although the pursuit of profit is a legitimate objective, it
must not become the only factor to be considered and must stop being
perceived as a short-term goal to be reached for the sole benefit of managers and shareholders. Instead, profit should be regarded as the result of
collective efforts of all parties, and it should be administered accordingly.
The rates and applications of profit should therefore be decided in common
by all stakeholders (managers, shareholders, and workers alike).
Admittedly, there is a price to be paid for this renewed vision of management. First and foremost, managers must forfeit their long-cherished
and, at times abusive, privileges to move toward a new form of organization
centered on the human being as well as on a flexible and creative approach. This type of organization is an absolute necessity if we hope to be
able to deal with an increasingly complex environment. We must therefore
give up individualistic, self-centered career patterns in order to move toward closely linked teams that are driven by a collective desire to succeed
"as a group." My point here is that we must supplement and, at times,
replace our traditional functionalist/individualistic views with concepts from
the radical Marxist and neo-Marxist humanistic tradition, regardless of the
fact that Marxism has historically been seen as the ideological nemesis of
Western capitalist economies.
I would submit that the neo-Marxist humanistic tradition is, by far, the
best foundation upon which to build a work environment that fosters creativity and productivity through the willing participation of all parties concerned in a common endeavor. This type of environment is based on individual as well as social justice, security, and sharing.
Finally, I would argue that the Taylorist vision of the employee as a cost
factor and as a passive cog has now become a liability that must be discarded as quickly as possible to make room for a humanistic vision,
whereby the employee is seen as an active and willing participant in the
organization. This is the practical and ideological price to be paid if we are
to halt and reverse the process of industrial decline that has plagued large
North American corporations over the last decade.

1992
Aktouf
427
REFERENCES
Aktouf, 0. 1986a. Le travail industriel contre l'homme? [Is industrial work against human
nature?]. Alger: OPU et SNED.
Aktouf, 0. 1986b. La parole dans la vie de l'entreprise: Faits et mefaits [Speech in organizational life: Roles and misdeeds]. Gestion, Revue internationale de gestion, 11: 31-37.
Aktouf, 0. 1989a. Le management entre tradition et renouvellement [Traditional management
and beyond: A matter of renewal] (rev. ed., 1990). Montreal: Gaetan Morin.
Aktouf, 0. 1989b. Questioning authority and transgressing some managerial "taboos" as
symbols of a strong leadership. Paper presented at the International Conference on Symbolic Leadership, INSEAD, Paris, June 28-30.
Aktouf, 0. 1989c. Parole, productivit6 et travail [Speech, productivity and work]. In Proceedings of the Roundtable on Work and Language Acts: 25-26. April, Paris, Ministere de la
Recherche, PIRTT'EM-CNRS.
Aktouf, O., & Chr6tien, M. 1987. Le cas Cascades. Comment se cree une culture d'entreprise
(Cascades: The birth of an organizational culture). Revue Fran,aise de gestion, 65-66:
156-166.
Aktouf, 0. 1990. Le symbolisme et la culture d'entreprise-Des
abus conceptuels aux lec,ons du
terrain (Symbolism and organizational culture). In J.-F. Chanlat (Ed.), L'individu dans
l'organisation, les dimensions oubliees [The individual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]: 553-588. Qu6bec-Paris:
PUL-ESKA.
Althusser, L. 1971. Lenin and philosophy and other essays. London: New Left Books.
Althusser, L., & Balibar, E. 1970. Reading capital. London: New Left Books.
Archier, G., & Serieyx, H. 1984. L'entreprise du 3e type [The corporation of the 3rd kind]. Paris:
Seuil.
Argyris, C. 1957. Personality and organization. New York: Harper.
Argyris, C. 1980. Some limitations of the case method: Experiences in a management
opment program. Academy of Management Review, 5: 291-299.
devel-
Atlan, H. 1972. Du bruit comme principe d'auto-organisation [Noise as a self-organizing principle]. Communications, 18: 21-37.
Atlan, H. 1985. Ordre et desordre dans les systemes naturels [Order and disorder in natural
systems]. In A. Chanlat & M. Dufour (Eds.), La Rupture entre l'entreprise et les hommes
[The rift between human beings and the organization]: 119-137. Paris: Editions d'Organisation.
Baran, P. A., & Sweezy, P. M. 1966. Monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Benson, J. K. 1977. Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22:
1-24.
Beynon, H. 1973. Working for Ford. London: Penguin Books.
Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brown, L. R. 1990. State of the World 1990. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Buroway, M. 1979. Manufacturing consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burr, I. W. 1984. Elementary statistical quality control. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London:
Heineman Educational Books.
Caill6, A. 1989. Critique de la raison utilitaire, manifeste du MAUSS [A critical look at utilitarian intelligence-The
MAUSS manifest]. Paris: La D6couverte.

428
July
Calvez, J. Y. 1970. La pensee de Karl Marx [The thinking of Karl Marx]. Paris: Seuil.
Cans, R. 1990. Le monde poubelle [The world as a garbage can]. Paris: First.
Chanlat, A., & B6dard, R. 1990. La gestion, une affaire de parole [Management as a language
act]. In J.-F. Chanlat (Ed.), L'individu dans l'organisation. Les dimensions oubliees [The
individual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]: 79-99. Qu6bec: Presses de
l'Universit6 Laval.
Chanlat, A., & Dufour, M. 1985. La rupture entre l'entreprise et les hommes [The rift between
human beings and the organization]. Montr6al: Qu6bec-Am6rique.
Chanlat, J.-F., & S6guin, F. 1987. L'analyse des organisations, une anthologie sociologique
[The analysis of organizations: A sociological anthology] (vol. 2). Montr6al: Gaetan Morin.
Chanlat, J.-F. (Ed.). 1990. L'individu dans l'organisation. Les dimensions oubliees [The individual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]. Qu6bec: Presses de l'Universit6
Laval.
Clegg, S. R. 1975. Power, myth and domination. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Clegg, S. R. 1990. Pouvoir symbolique, langage et organisation (Symbolic power, language
and organization). In J.-F. Chanlat (Ed.), L'individu dans l'organisation. Les dimensions
oubliees [The individual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]: 663-681. Qu6bec: Presses de l'Universit6 Laval.
Clegg, S. R., & Dunkerley, D. 1977. Critical issues in organizations.
Kegan Paul.
London: Routledge &
Crosby, P. B. 1979. Quality is free. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Crozier, M. 1989. L'entreprise a l'ecoute [The listening corporation]. Paris: InterEditions.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. 1982. Corporate culture: The rites and rituals of corporate life.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dejours, C. 1980. Le travail, usure mentale [Work and mental fatigue]. Paris: Le Centurion.
Dejours, C. 1990. Nouveau regard sur la souffrance humaine dans les organisations (A new
look on human suffering in the organization). In J.-F. Chanlat (Ed.), L'individu dans l'organisation. Les dimensions oubliees [The individual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]: 687-708. Qu6bec: Presses de l'Universit6 Laval.
DePree, M. 1989. Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday.
Dumont, R. 1988. Un monde intolerable. Le liberalisme en question [An intolerable world: A
new look at liberalism]. Paris: Seuil.
Duncan, A. J. 1974. Quality control and industrial statistics. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Etchegoyen, A. 1990. Les entreprises ont-elles une dme? [Does the corporation have a soul?].
Paris: Franc,ois Bourrin.
Etzioni, A. 1989. The moral dimension: Toward a new economics. New York: Free Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1950. Social anthropology. London: Cohen & West.
Fromm, E. 1961. Marx's concept of man. New York: Frederick Ungar.
Galbraith, J. K. 1958. The affluent society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Galbraith, J. K. 1987. Economics in perspective. A critical history. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gasparini, G. 1990. Temps et travail en Occident [Time and work in the Western world]. In J.-F.
Chanlat (Ed.), L'individu dans l'organisation. Les dimensions oubliees [The individual
within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]: 199-214. Qu6bec: Presses de l'Universit6 Laval.

1992
429
Aktouf
Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Girin, J. 1982. Langage en actes et organisations [Language acts and the organization]. In
Economie et Societe [Economics and society]. The ISMEA Proceedings on Management
Sciences, 3(16): 1559-1591.
Girin, J. 1990. Problemes de langage dans les organisations [Language problems within the
organization]. In J.-F. Chanlat (Ed.), L'individu dans l'organisation. Les dimensions oubliees [The individual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]: 37-78. Qu6bec:
Presses de I'Universit6 Laval.
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Harnecker, M. 1974. Les concepts elementaires du materialisme
cepts of historic materialism]. Bruxelles: Contradictions.
historique [The basic con-
Hassard, J. 1988. Time, work and organization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hassard, J. 1990. Pour un paradigme ethnographique du temps de travail [Toward an ethnographic paradigm of time and work]. In J.-F. Chanlat (Ed.), L'individu dans l'organisation.
Les dimensions oubliees [The individual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]: 215-230. Qu6bec: Presses de l'Universit6 Laval.
Heilbroner, R. 1970. The wordly philosophers.
New York: Washington Square Press.
Heilbroner, R. 1980. Marxism: For and against. New York: Norton.

Herzberg, F. 1980. Humanities: Practical management
72.
education. Industry Week, 206(7): 69-
Julien, C. 1990. La planete mise a sac [The pillaging of the planet]. Le monde diplomatiqueManiere de voir: 8. Paris.
Juran, J. M., & Gryna, F. M. 1980. Quality planning and analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kamdem, E. 1990. Temps et travail en Afrique [Time and work in Africa]. In J.-F. Chanlat (Ed.),
L'individu dans l'organisation. Les dimensions oubliees [The individual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]: 231-255. Qu6bec: Presses de l'Universit6 Laval.
Kets de Vries, M., & Miller, D. 1984. The neurotic organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kilman, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. 1985. Gaining control of the corporate culture. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kolakowski, L. 1968. Toward a Marxist humanism. New York: Grove Press.
Kolakowski, L. 1978. Main currents of Marxism (vols. 1-3). London: Oxford University Press.
Kolakowski, L. 1987. Histoire du marxisme [A history of Marxism] (vol. 1). Paris: Fayard.
Lee, J. A. 1980. The gold and the garbage in management
Ohio University Press.
theories and prescriptions. Athens:
Lovelock, J. F. 1979. Gaia, a new look at life on earth. New York: Norton.
Lucaks, G. 1971. History and class consciousness.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mandel, E. 1974. Althusser corrige Marx [Althusser corrects Marx]. In collectif, Contre Althusser
[Against Althusser]: 261 -285. Paris: U.G.E.
Mantoux, P. 1959. La revolution industrielle du XVIII' siecle [The industrial revolution of the
18th century]. Paris: Genin.
Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and personality.
New York: Harper.
Maslow, A. 1969. Toward humanistic biology. American Psychologist,
24: 724-735.
Maury, R. 1990. Les patrons japonais parlent [The Japanese bosses on management].
Seuil.

Paris:
430
July
Michel, S. 1989. Peut-on gerer les motivations? [Can motivation be managed?]. Paris: PUF.
Minc, A. 1990. L'argent fou [Mad money]. Paris: Grasset.
Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of managerial
work. New York: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H. 1989. Inside our strange world of organisations.
New York: Free Press.
Mitroff, I. I., & Pauchant, T. 1990. We're so big and powerful nothing bad can happen to us.
New York: Birch Lane Press.
Monthoux, P. Guillet de 1989. The moral philosophy of management.
script, Stockholm University.
Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organizations.
Unpublished manu-
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Neuville, J. 1976. La condition ouvriere au XIX' siecle. L'ouvrier objet [Working conditions in
the 19th century: The worker as an object]. Paris: Vie ouvriere.
Neuville, J. 1980. La condition ouvriere au XIX' siecle. L'ouvrier suspect [Working conditions
in the 19th century: The worker as a suspect]. Paris: Vie ouvriere.
Nord, W. R. 1974. The failure of current applied behavioral science: A Marxian perspective.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10: 557-578.
Olive, D. 1987. Just rewards: The case of ethical reform in business. Toronto: Key Porter Books.
Orgogozo, I., & Serieyx, H. 1989. Changer le changement
[Changing change]. Paris: Seuil.
Ouchi, W. G. 1981. Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Packard, V. 1989. The ultra rich: How much is too much? London: Little, Brown.
Pages, M., Bonetti, V., & de Gaulejac, V. 1984. L'emprise de l'organisation [The domination of
the organization] (3rd ed.). Paris: PUF.
Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. 1981. The art of Japanese management.
Schuster.
New York: Simon &
Passet, R. 1979. L'economique et le vivant [Economics and the living]. Paris: Payot.
Perrow, C. 1979. Organizational theory in a society of organizations. Paper presented at the
symposium: L'administration publique: Perspectives d'avenir [Public administration: Future perspectives], Quebec.
Perrow, C. 1986. Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: Random House.
Pestel, E. 1988. L'homme et la croissance, Rapport au Club de Rome [Man and growth: Report
to the Club of Rome]. Paris: Economica.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. 1982. In search of excellence.
New York: Harper & Row.
Peters, T. 1987. Thriving on chaos. San Francisco: Knopf.

Peters, T., & Austin, N. 1985. A passion of excellence.
Pfeffer, R. 1979. Working for capitalism.
New York: Random House.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Rifkin, J. 1980. The entropy law: A new world view. New York: Bantam Books.
Sainsaulieu, R. 1983. La r6gulation culturelle des ensembles organis6s [The cultural regulation
of organizations]. L'annee sociologique [The Sociological Year], 33: 195-217.
Sainsaulieu, R. 1987. D6veloppement social et cr6ation institutionnelle en entreprise [Social
development and institutional creation in organizations]. Organisation et management en
question(s) [Organization and management in question]. [Collective work edited by Dominique Desjeux]: 203-221. Paris: L'Harmattan.
Sartre, J.-P. 1948. Existentialism
and humanism. London: Methuen.

431
1992
Aktouf
Sartre, J.-P. 1966. Being and nothingness.
New York: Washington Square Press.
Sartre, J.-P. 1976. Critique of dialectical

Schein, E. 1985. Organizational
reason (vol. 1). London: New Left Books.
culture and leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scherkenbach, W. 1988. The Deming route to quality and productivity. Washington, DC: CEE
Press.
Schumpeter, J. 1942. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
S6guin, F., & Chanlat, J.-F. 1983. L'analyse des organisations, une anthologie sociologique
[The analysis of organizations: A sociological anthology] (vol. 1). Montr6al: Gaetan Morin.
Serieyx, H. 1989. Le zero mepris [Zero contempt]. Paris: InterEditions.
Sievers, B. 1986a. Beyond the surrogate of motivation. Organization Studies, 7: 335-351.
Sievers, B. 1986b. Participation as a collusive quarrel over immortality. Dragon, the Journal of
SCOS, 1(1): 72-82.
Silverman, D. 1971. The theory of organizations.
London: Heineman Educational Books.
Solomon, R. C., & Hanson, K. R. 1985. It's good business. New York: Atheneum.
Stayer, R. 1990. How I learned to let my workers lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6): 66-83.
Terkel, D. 1972. Working. New York: Avon Books.
Thompson, E. P. 1967. Time, work, discipline and industrial capitalism. Past and Present,
38(December): 56-97.
Toffler, A. 1980. The third wave. New York: William Morrow.
Toffler, A. 1986. The adaptive corporation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Turner, B. A. (Ed.). 1990. Organizational
symbolism. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Varela, F. J. 1980. Principles of biological autonomy. New York: Elsevier North Holland.
Villette, M. 1988. L'homme qui croyait au management
ment]. Paris: Seuil.
[The man who believed in manage-
Vincent, J. C. 1990. Des systemes et des hommes [Of systems and men]. Paris: Les Editions
d'organisation.
Voslensky, M. 1980. La nomenklatura [The nomenklatural. Paris: Pierre Belfond.
Waterman, R. 1987. The renewal factor. New York: Bantam.
Weitzman, M. 1984. The share economy: Conquering stagflation.
University Press.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Omar Aktouf received his Ph.D. from the ncole des Hautes etudes Commerciales, the
business faculty of the University of Montr6al, where he is an associate professor of
management. His research interests include organizational culture, project management, critical research on management theory and practice, as well as symbolism and
the discursive aspect of management.


Aktouf 1992

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aktouf 1992

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management and Theories of Organizations in the 1990s: Toward a Critical Radical Humanism?

Author(s): Omar Aktouf

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

? Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

claim to "revolutionize" management and organizational theories. After a

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

an active and willing accomplice. This almost complete reversal of roles

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

presents us with the same phenomenon that we firstdiscovered

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

In sum, my use of neo-Marxist radical humanism is this vision of people

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

sellers claiming to completely reform management), more radical voices

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

and productivity, of the selfish and short-term behavior of managers . .. all

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

functionalism's ahistorical stance. The answers lie in discovering the context

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

in greater profitability. According to Maury (1990), for instance, Japanese

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

volved the reviving and restoring of a number of bankrupt businesses to top

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

shed theoretical light on such "cases," researchers must turn to a conceptual

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

London: Routledge &

Crosby, P. B. 1979. Quality is free. New York: McGraw-Hill.

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

historique [The basic con-

New York: Washington Square Press.

Heilbroner, R. 1980. Marxism: For and against. New York: Norton.

education. Industry Week, 206(7): 69-

theories and prescriptions. Athens:

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

New York: Harper.

Maslow, A. 1969. Toward humanistic biology. American Psychologist,

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:49 PM

Academy of Management Review

work. New York: Harper & Row.

Mintzberg, H. 1989. Inside our strange world of organisations.

New York: Free Press.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.