Against management

Abstract

Martin Parker: Against Management - Book Review Deborah Blackman 2002, Cambridge: Polity Press. 256 pages [pounds sterling]50, ISBN 0745629253 (hbk); [pounds sterling]14.99, ISBN 0745629261 (pbk) There has been a growing debate in the last few years regarding how well management is both understood and applied within industry and academia, reflecting concerns as to why it is not providing individuals and businesses with ideal solutions. Indications of these discussions can be found in the growth of disciplines such as critical management studies and in the resurgence of interest in philosophy and its application to managerial thought. There is also, however, a growing question as to whether the reason why management is not sufficiently understood to be truly effective is because it is not the right strategy in itself. It is into this arena, challenging many of the currently accepted thoughts on management, that Martin Parker unashamedly places this book. The underpinning argument running through the book is that management and organization have become almost synonymous: to be organized is to have an effective managerialist perspective that enables processes and structures to be implemented. Thus, if al ternative ways of organizing are to be achieved, management must be challenged and its acceptance as the best way of coordinating businesses reconsidered. Initially Martin Parker states that he wishes to persuade us 'that almost all... senses of management are both limiting and dangerous, and that managerialism is ultimately a form of thought and activity which is being used to justify considerable cruelty and inequality' (p. 9), and that, as a result of the book, he wishes the reader to challenge the acceptance of management as a saviour and to consider the possibility of management as a problem. His objective is to collect diverse texts together which will illustrate that there is no one best way to organize the world and, thus, he proposes the book as 'one element in a battle of ideas for this particular epoch which attempts to open up the possibility of alternative, non-managerial, conceptions of organizing' (p. 12). These are no small objectives and whether Martin Parker achieves them will be discussed here. The book has four main thrusts. First, the concept of what management actually has come to mean is explored and three general assumptions are outlined, in order to identify that his target is managerialism, the generalized ideology of management. This target is chosen because he wishes to debate the increasingly accepted use of business school style management to organize and control everything, in order to propose alternative, nonmanagerial forms of organizing. Proposals are made concerning options such as democracy, community, participation, citizenship and cooperation. After discussing the background of the book and the reasons for engaging in a consideration of management, the second section of the book addresses instances where classic formulations of management and its purpose have been 'opposed and reformulated, though often in ways that relegitimize a market based managerialism' (p. 12) and looks for ways whereby some alternatives to the managerial perspective may emerge. The three examples used are the notion of bureaucracy, with particular focus upon George Ritzer's discussions of McDonaldization; contemplation of notions of citizenship; and the idea of how communities might change the notion of organizing. Each chapter is seeking to identify why the current paradigms are too delimiting and to propose some alternative trains of thought. This is not entirely achieved; although (particularly in the chapters about citizenship and community) many of the understandably complex arguments seem to lead to a clear conclusion that there is a need to rethink, there are few rea l alternative ideas being proffered. It could be argued that this is not the purpose of the book, and that these ideas are due to come later, but for readers to continue to delve into the book there need to be a few more promises of treats in store. The greatest feeling of a real option is in the discussion about an 'orgunity' (p. 81). This is a 'thought experiment' of an organization that is an ideal-type community, and leads into a very interesting discussion as to what would be needed and why. However, this section ends with a statement that the issues will need clarifying, and there is hardly any further mention of the concept or these ideas. The third section of the book concentrates upon the very real sense of mistrust of management and explores current debates which are attempting to address some of the problems. The areas considered are the idea of business ethics, the academic discipline of critical management studies, the fight against corporations as portrayed in the culture industries (such as film and literature), and the anti-corporate protest embracing organizations such as Earth First!. Various aspects of anti-managerial thought are outlined and their arguments highlighted and explored. This section is very strong and the reader is left with an unambiguous picture of the attempts that have been made to challenge the current order, and of why they have not always worked. The real difficulties of transferring these ideas from the theoretical applications seen in a classroom or a film into the reality of business become very clear. The difficulties of identifying the enemy are outlined: for example, if a corporation is synonymous with it s culture, then changing the culture will challenge the corporation; but if it is not, no alteration will occur. Similarly, it is vital to establish when management and the organization are the same; otherwise, to challenge management will not be to challenge the actual way corporations and businesses are designed. The final section of the book moves away from a critique of managerialism and sets out to achieve three things. First, the objectives of the book are revisited, tightening up the arguments against managerialism considerably. This raises the question as to why this is revisited so late, as the argument is far more compelling and does not rely on the intervening chapters. The second element discusses the sites of potential resistance and possible loci of change. This is a useful summary and enables key problems to be clarified and expanded; the fact that so many different parties feel a need to make challenges demonstrates the difficulties in achieving revolutionary alternatives. The third part of the conclusion concerns alternative ways of organizing. The following options are suggested: the encouragement of multiple perspectives, reconsiderations about scale, protectionism (in terms of taking on the issues a community cares about), cooperatives that would encourage membership responsibility and increased dem ocracy, a complete rethink of the way structures are coordinated, and a challenge to currently accepted norms about hierarchy. These ideas, it is mooted, will challenge the idea that management, as it is currently being defined, is the best way to organize corporations in the future. The whole conclusion leads to two main statements: there is no one best way to organize; and new ideas seem to be limited by a lack of imagination in demonstrating that there could be alternatives and what they could be. So has Martin Parker achieved what he set out to do? I think the answer is yes, in part. When I first heard about the book and was given the opportunity to read and review it I was very excited, as I agree wholeheartedly that current managerial norms and practices need serious reconsideration. I really wanted this book to energize the debate and to encourage others to consider new and alternative solutions. I find that I totally agree with the conclusions and that the arguments are of real interest. However, I feel that the book is not completely successful, for two reasons. The first problem is a question about who this book is for and this is, in many ways, a direct reflection of a problem that Martin Parker identifies in his own introduction. He states that because of the way that academics write, they lose readers and end up only talking to themselves. This is exactly such a book; I cannot imagine that anybody other than an academic will last beyond Chapter 1. This is not because there are not fascinating ideas and insights to be gained, but because the debates are intensely academic in nature and there are not enough signposts of hope for new proposals early enough. Chapter 2, for example, reads as an essay debating Ritzer and, as such, provides interesting food for thought, but as a clear set of arguments considering why there need to be alternative views it is not nearly so clear. The result is that many of the people who really need to be encouraged to challenge their currently held views will not engage with the text and, although some of the later chapters are clearer in some ways, I suspect the clarification will be too late. I am not in any way advocating an 'airport book' with a series of bullet points showing why we need to change the world, but there is a need for this book to be at least a little more accessible. After all, Martin Parker himself indicates that as the readers will assimilate the book through their own prejudices, there have to be clear arguments that will work through managerial paradigms if there are to be any readers who change their opinions as they read the book. My other concern is that while it is made very clear that this book is about setting up an argument, not providing a solution, if people are to be persuaded about alternatives there needs to be more time spent developing initial ideas a little further. Martin Parker says that he hopes that the first parts of the book 'add up to an interesting (if not coherent) story' (p. 182). If this is all that he wanted then I can say that this has been achieved. After all, there is no doubt th