Unlearning the Fifth Discipline: Power, Politics and Control in Organizations

Unlearning Fifth Discipline: Power, Politics and Control in Organizations By Devi Akella Response Books, New Delhi, 2003; Pages 273, Rs.295. Written in a simple narrative style book attempts to generate a new perspective on work environments and kind of relationship that may exist between employers and employees in learning organizations. This book, based on author's doctoral dissertation, presents rich and qualitative data collected from several Indian organizations and is a contribution towards understanding of changing workplace. The author starts off with explaining learning organizations as ideal workplaces that ensure employee autonomy and empowerment. It traces origin of concept to late 1970s when Japanese companies were taking over global markets. The central part of work consists of author's study of two modern accounting firms (chapters 4 to 7). The study emphasizes on nature of teamwork among high-skilled individuals and to examine whether managerial function of coordination is a hidden form of control which guides employees, through an array of subtle ways, into falling in line with purposes of those in command. Given that an organization brings together a number of people with varied capabilities, motivations and objectives, question that arises is 'what holds it together and directs it towards a common goal'. The conventional answer to this question has been that it is power that does job. Power as controlling factor could be seen, or so it was claimed, if one looked into early organizations: A group of bandits, an army or a guild. Work in all these forms was assigned and supervised by a leader who exercised authority and under whose command each member of group performed his task. When factories became typical organizations after Industrial Revolution, role of power in organizations became more explicit. It was provider of capital or owner who brought workers together and defined tasks and terms of work. The owner also decided what workers should get. The best workers could do was to resist, and in doing so, they were able to affect some changes in conditions of work. Consequently, organizations came to be viewed as exercise of power on one hand and resistance on other. With passage of time, some element of delegation of power to supervisors was incorporated into this basic model of capitalist organization. Further down, ownership became somewhat diffused and owners tended to become sleeping partners. This led to a strengthening of role of supervisors who effectively became managers. Some analysts and writers glorified this as the managerial revolution. However, revolution was limited to manner of exercising power, leaving role of workers largely unaffected. Who are workers? Are workers merely passive, except when they become active as resistors? Whatever supervisors and managers do, is it also work? If there is a difference between what workers do and what managers do, can it be confined to colour of collar? Once these questions became live issues, it appeared that basic model of organizations as locales of power and resistance was inadequate to depict their true nature. …