Book Review of Overcoming Managerialism: Power, Authority and Rhetoric at Work

Jeff Muldoon

Journal of Management History

ISSN: 1751-1348

Article publication date: 9 May 2024

Issue publication date: 9 May 2024

201

Citation

Muldoon, J. (2024), "Book Review of Overcoming Managerialism: Power, Authority and Rhetoric at Work", Journal of Management History, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 303-305. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-04-2024-306

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited


Overcoming Managerialism, written by Robert Spillane and Jean-Etienne Joullié, is an important account regarding the shortcomings of management practice and research which emerged over the last 60 or so years. Accordingly, their work is a major criticism against current mainstream business practice, education and research. Indeed, some commentators, both on the political left and right, have challenged the nature of managerialism, that is the idea that power and authority should adhere to the top strata of society, who are seemingly beyond their responsibility to their fellows. Many of the long-term trends in modern society, especially those that have been impacting America and Europe over the last few years (especially since the 2000s), come from the notion that corporations and politicians no longer care about the public. While scholars over the years (especially James Burnham and Christopher Lasch) have written extensively on this issue, Spillane and Joullié offer not just an explanation, but also a solution.

Before I continue with my review, I would like to state that Dr Joullié and I are members of the Journal of Management History editorial board and are working as coauthors. In addition, Dr Joullie has published several articles in this journal. I have previously reviewed their work, The Philosophical Foundations of Management Thought, in this journal.

Professors Spillane and Joullié’s book builds on their previous work (Philosophical Foundations), which challenged the orthodoxy of the modern business school. This book examines why managerialism has become a common practice. Partly, this is a story of how managerialism entered the business school, especially through Ford and Carnegie foundations, which created a curriculum driven by empirical research and building a technocratic ideal. Instead, the curriculum has glorified authority at the expense of authoritative managers. The former seeks to dominate the worker through power; the latter seeks to engage the worker through argumentation.

Authoritative managers are far more effective because they truly engage the worker in a meaningful sense. This fact allows them to weather the storms that are common in the modern world due to technological, political and economic changes. For example, who could have predicted the upheaval of COVID-19 in 2018? The business school, as other critics such as Steven Conn and others have noted, has not really addressed societal issues in any meaningful way in either curriculum or research. In fact, the emergence of technical education, and the emphasis on conformity and acquiesce rather than argument, have furthered these trends of ignoring societal issues in research.

A refocus on three prominent writers on authority, Max Weber, Mary Parker Follett and Chester Barnard, could help to overturn the last 50 years of management education and practice. I found the section on Follett to be most illuminating in that Follett stressed the communal nature of both knowledge exchange and authority, both of which receive some mention in the business curriculum, but one that is completely ignored mostly in the vast majority. Indeed, part of the issue is that Weber, Follett and others, were humanists, in that their education was in a humanity, rather than business. In fact, the nature of arguing, understanding evidence and critical thinking, which are parts of the classical liberal arts is missing from the modern business curriculum–which creates a structure based on authority. To explain, in a liberal arts field, students are offered an explanation as to why a particular theory is important; in business, especially for undergraduates and MBA students, we are taught that something just is, with little explanation.

As someone that has researched and taught personality, I found Spillane and Joullié writings on personality, which was very critical, to be very interesting. This is not to say that I agree with their arguments wholly (or even partly) but they raise some very pertinent points in that our use of personality uses inference rather than observing actual behaviors. This move reduces the humanity (what is distinct about the individual) of workers, reducing them into objects, which can be easily classified as extrovert or introvert. In such a move, it should not wonder that organizations may select individuals who seek to confirm or eliminate personality types that may (rightly) challenge the status quo. Likewise, personality research, as the authors’ note, probably does not spend enough time discussing how situations impact behavior, instead preferring to analyze personality. This approach ignores the true complexity of human behavior. As commentators from Shakespeare, Euripides, Virgil, Chaucer and others have noted, some of the best actions were done by the most evil; and some of the worst were done by those who were noble.

The writing of the book was illuminative; the topics well selected; and the research, sound. However, I still had some complaints about the book. I must concede that these complaints are less than serious indictments, but more topics I wish the authors had tackled. For example, their argument about the objectification of workers is interesting. One, many scholars would point out that the modern business corporation is more humanized than ever before. As evidence, they point out that modern managers are more socially aware as they engage in stakeholder management and corporate social responsibility. Two, they argue that management is less exploitative than ever before because it stands up for the forgotten person.

Yet the charge of managerialism remains an issue, despite the changes above. For instance, if we could accept that we objectify humans, then it is also possible that we could humanize objects, such as a corporation. Recently, corporations (or rather its agents) have been taking political stances on issues. Whatever the merits of those stances, nevertheless, this is an example of managers trying to do good, contrary to the wishes of shareholders or other members of the organization. In this case, managers believe they are better and more competent than others. Indeed, managerialism could be used to justify behaviors that are deeply unethical, such as effective altruism, or the idea that ruthless cutthroat business actions may be justified if these unethical behaviors support a noble cause. I believe managerialism justifies this action because “managers know better.” While these are important topics, nevertheless, they might be tangential to what the authors were doing with this book. Hopefully, though, the authors will look at these issues in the future.

To conclude: this is an excellent work and one that every management scholar and practitioner should read.

Related articles