MANAGEMENT AND THEORIES OF

ORGANIZATIONS IN THE 1990s: TOWARD A

CRITICAL RADICAL HUMANISM?
OMAR AKTOUF
£cole dea Hautes £tudes Commerciciles,
cdf iliated with the University of Montreal
The author argues that the present mainstream writiims on, and de-
bates about "new" ideas of management and theories of organiza-
tion, lack adequate theoretical assumptions and background. He pro-
poses that those who question the future and efiicienqr of Western
organizations need to rely more on a radical-humanistic and iwo-
Marxist conceptualization than on the f unctionalistic tradition. There-
fore, management theorists and practitioners should integrate such a
concept in order to better understand how to transform the passive-
obedient Taylorist employee into an active-cooperative one. To
achieve a truly renewed form of management, researchers must adopt
a global view ol humankind, in order to give workers a significant
measure of control over their own environments and workbig condi-
tions.
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 enor-
mous environmental costs that Western businesses must add to their al-
ready 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;Iulien, 19^; Love-
lock, 1979; Mintzberg, 1989; Mltroff & Pauchant, 1990; Morgan, 1986; Olive,
1987; Pestei, 1988; Solomon & Hanson, 1985).
The present reflection springs from my growing difficulty, as a man-
agement 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
D6rY, Allain Joly, and Thierry Pcmchani for reading and commenting on this text, as well as to
Andr^ Cyr for his editorial assistance with the final version of this article.
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 tradition-
ally quite foreign to management scholars; radicalism, radical humanism,
and a dialectico-canflictual vision. These are notions from a critical or Marx-
ist tradition, and they do not usually fit into the field of consensual function-
alism (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, Chapter 5).
We are faced with an interesting paradox because the leading propo-
nents of management and organization theory (e.g., Crozier, 1989; Mintz-
berg, 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 con-
ceptual 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 nec-
essary, if not inevitable, to turn to the framework and relevant concepts of
more radical, and even Marxist, theories in order for researchers to under-
stand what is actually happening in management and to find ways of open-
ing 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 "commit-
ment," their "mobilization," and so forth? (What I call second wind is essen-
tially 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 hutnanism and radical hu~
monism, 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.

CURRENT REFORMIST MANAGERIAL 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 tradi-
tional framework of utilitarian functionalism and neoclassical economic
thought (e.g., Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Caill6, 1989; Chanlat & S^guin, 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 tradi-

tional 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 ol myths and values, a catalyst far
the constellation of symbols to mobilize an enthusiastic industrial work force
galvanized for productivity and unflagging performance (Kllman, 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 sys-
tems, and zero faults of )ust-in-time production (Burrell & Morgan, 1979;
Crosby, 1979; Duncan, 1974; Juran & Gryna, 1980).
Most of the recent bestsellers in the field of management have essen-
tially combined the themes of corporate culture and management by qual-
ity. 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 cre-
ativity at all levels. It is expected that this will be done by revalorizing
human capital. It appears that common values, team spirit, initiative, col-
laboration, equity, quality, morality, and honesty are the compulsory
means to that end.
Actually, almost all the authors of recent management bestsellers ei-
ther 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 suc-
cess 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 oi developing techniques and instruments that
would help production move faster and faster at the plant. Creativity, ini-
tiative, 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 devel-
oped 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 Academy ol Management Review July

cams had rendered more and more dull and meaningless. An eloquent
example of this are the hundreds of posts defined as suitable for the men-
tally 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 differ-
ent 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 paTticipants. Yet tradi-
tional 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 manage-
ment theorists cannot see that such dramatic shifts in the factors of success
require an equally dramatic shift in management philcsophy 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 em-
ployee can be "managed" at all. Yet we have witnessed a proliferation of
new "how tos": how to construct a "good corporate culture," how to "man-
age 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 stan-
dard 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, en-
thusiasm, 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 per-
sonal 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 Aitouf 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 mis-
deeds of most Western managers, tainted as they are with economism,
shortsightedness, utilitarianism, and mechanistic technicism (Etzioni, 1989;
Mine, 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 "non-
industrial" 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. Cbviously, such clarity can be gained only if
we are wiUing 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 theoret-
ical 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 intel-
ligence 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 sori 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 empioyee who is wiUing 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 Academy of Managemenf Review JiUy

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

might lead to the heights of liberation or to the pit of alienation and exploi-
tation. But recognition of the need to "promote" the worker {foidbfy implying
more respect for bis or ber interests and autonomy), even if from a strictly
managerial and economic perspective, is, I believe, already a big step
forward. T^e worker's increased autonomy is inconceivable without some
sharing of power, of management and decision-making rights, and of rights
aver means, profits, and so forih.
Another limitation of the reformed managerial view of the i980s is the
obstinate refuKil to question the grounds on which work relations are ac-
tually 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 de-
cisions. (For a theoretical and practical analysis of this sleight-of-hand, see
Abouf, 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 discus-
sions and concerns on the employee (human capital and resource). This is
a sure sign oi rekindled interest in the human element. However, by im-
plicitly 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 hu-
manism. 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 lib-
eration? 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 (Mintz-
berg, 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, essentkiUy, in a radical
change in everyone's concrete working conditions. A culture of synergy and
c»Baboration—characterized by convergence, closeness, and sharing—
must be injected into actual practice.
However, today there are several authors, notably among the Europe-
ans, who are proposing different and more authenticaUy human^tic ave-
nues of research and action. These authors perhaps offer a bridge between
the aspirations of gurus like Paters and Waterman and work relations
founded on more radical-humanistic views. But, first, it is important to un-
derstand what is meant by bumanism arwl radical bumonism. Also, what
are the prom^es and lacunae of t h e ^ movements that seem to act as
"bridges"?
 AMail

THE RADICiO-HUHAinSnC POSITIOM AMD SC»fE

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 gu^a of probing
investigation and return to the wallspring 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), re-
store 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 de-
velopment, his dignity, his liberty. On the prindpie that man is
not a means to reach this or that end but diat he is him^f the
bearer of his own end. Not only on his capacity for individual
action, but also his capacity for participation in 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 an-
imal") 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 rela-
tions, class phenomena)—makes people beings that are fundamentaBy de-
fined by community, society, and tiieir relations with others. Therelatica:^ in
and through which people Uve, h a ^ them to construct and grasp their s e n ^
of self (which make them the ground and condition of !^f-realizatic«i). What
inter^ts me here is not whelh^ Aristotle, J^ira, and Web®r diverge or
conveiga as theoreticians, but, instead, ibe fcict that they all recogmiasd
"man's" nature is undeniably social and cx3mmiir:dty-onented.
3. C^ven that tha main focus of this |:»resent discussUm is ths perKm at
work, the m<^ ccanpeUing system, 'drought, and autiior on t
414 Academy of Management Review July

apparently MandBm and Kbri Marx. However, it is riot easy to find one's
way, clearly cpid simply, through whaX counti^js Mandan Kihools and al-
legiances have statai or l ^ d on humanism. Therefore, I must add a iaw
essential Aeoretical precautiors.
Based on several well-known spedaliste on the subject (Calvez, 1970;
Fromm, 1961,-Gramsci, i971;Heilbroner. 1970, 1980; Koiakow^, 1968, 1978;
Lucaks, 1971)—while not minimizing the nuances and sometimes major
differenoBS between them—I can at least justify the decision to consider the
work of Maix as a whole, the so-cxallad "mature" works {especially Capital)
being framed by and rooted in early works (particularly the Manuscripts of
1844). I c^ree with Kolakowski that "all Marx's critical writings (the 1844
Manuscripts; Misery of Pbilosopby from 1847; Wori, Salary an?J Capita/ from
1849; Grundisse from 1857-1858; ContribuWon to the Critic of Political-
Economy from 1859 and, finally. Capital) are just so many more and more
refined versions of a single Une 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 tha conditions dehumanizing man and
for possible w a ^ of restoring more human conditions (1987: 377).
I am inclined to beUeve—espedaUy in light of Grundisse—that Capital
can be considered, at various (more structural) levels, as tha and of the
quest that was begun with the Manuscripts, a quest initially more normative
and anthropological:

This must only be seen as a diange in terminology and not a

change in content, because the whole process in which human
work and the products of this work are alienatedfromworkers is
d^cribed in Capital:... the subsequent description in Capital
presents us with the same phenomenon that we firet discovered
in the Manuscripts. (Kdakowski, 1987: 381)

I cxmsider the key element for discussion in the radical-humanist and

neo-Marxist framework is the question of aUanation, that is, of alienated
work. I will return to these cfefinitions, but at this point let us ramambar that
people are most in danger of "ruin," of "losing themselves" (alienation),
through the very act by which they can express their generic e^enca: tha
act of work. The heart of tiie process of dehumariizing "man" is alienation
through work. This idea explains the primordial importance of what takes
placse, cona:«taly, in the work process, in ths process, the workers aUenata
thenra^ves by selling thair capacity for work (and not their work, which
be a creative act) while cxmtributii^ to the development and the
forest (riMrchandi^, profits, capital) whk;h are exterior,
foreign, and, in the final airalysis, tKstite to them and, tiius, e-^ren more
"d^umanizing." "Hie finality ptirsued is no loni^r the person and what is
most human in him or her (e.g., satisfcKtiQn of needs trough utility value)
but the "unUmited giowUi of exchange value" (Kolakowski. 1987: 2BQ).
1992 AJctDuf 415

in sum, my use of r^o-Marxist radk^sl humani£»n is ib^ viman. of people

^ p p i i ^ into "self-estnmgement" b©caiise of wbat they are led to do and
exparienca as sxrial and economic baings. Therefore, I conskier compie-
n^fntary, Kather than mutually exclusive, analyses using ccaieepts from
Marx's early writings (consciousness, alieiKition. criticam) or from later ones
(structure, contradiction, crises). In fact, in light of ^secialtets already cited,
I find that it K enough to know on which "lavel" of analysis one is c^jerating.
Basically, the alienated parson is neith^' different, nor cut off from the "pro-
letarian" caught up in production relations that are structurally, materially,
and historically detarminad ond dialecticaUy inscribed in a spiral of con-
tradictions. In other words, with Kolakowski and "agaii^" Althusser, I faal
justified in considering the scientific and positivist Mant of Capital to be a
continuation (enlarged and d^pened by more structural instruments) of the
young, rather anthropological and philosophical Marx of the Mcmuscripte.
It is altogether possible to sea in this evolution neither denial, nor episte-
mological break, nor change of object, but more simply a ^aift in approach
to the same set of problems: recognition of "man's" dehumanization, search
for the proce^es and mechanisms of this dehumanization, and investiga-
tion 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 sup-
plemented by Sartre's writings (1948, 1966, 1976) in which the notion of "bad
faith" joins those of "false consciousriess" and "aUanation" (Burrell & Mor-
gan, 1979, Chapter 8) and wl^ra tha human being is, by definition and
necessity, a being whose destiny is meaning, intentions, and projects—
thus, by nature, a parson is involvad in his or her baing 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 ctiea of anthropology, represented by,
among others, Evans-Pritchard (1950), have paid specific attention to the
theory of tha subject and the question of its bases. In these writings, it is
specifically stated that human baings are dafinitaly not like mec^axiisms or
organisms: They are ruled by reasons, feelings, and choices and not by
"causes" (unless, to repeat, they are forced, other-determkiad, or alienated,
in which casa there is no longer a subject but something object^ed, mified,
an instrument). Thus, I beUeve ibere is reason to ccmsider Evana-Pritchard's
contribution as a possible mear^ c^ completing the bases ai a theory of

These are the main points of tha radical-humanist poEation I intend to

adopt. In a following section, I wffl exj^ain how it can be used to better
understand the intent of cxmtampomry management and orgaxiizatira^
th^^ries. At th^ point, I vrauM like to diiect c^tentionto certain c^her Y9^S^
that seem fo add samstend&noBs,of a more tadkxd-hunKmfe^ "stcmap" to
the picture. Depending on the schoc^ a r d au&ors, this stamp viU be more
or l e ^ ifficf^f^, more or less avowed, more or less stn^igly odvoco^ed.
In the prevailii^ trend for 2i»:Enx]a3e^ (that I have idsnti&ed astinebeN^-
416 Academy of Managemeni Review July

sellers claiming to complataly reform management), more radical voices

are sometimes heard. Thus, Peters (1^7), Sarieyx (1989), Waterman (1987),
and Mintzbarg (1989) have used words calling for a ravo/tition; manage-
ment by men who are still men; suppression of managreriaJ rules tbat de-
grade people; iiberation of inteWigence from the grip of tha inhuman Tay-
lorlan machine; disregard of now ossified top-down bierarcbical autbority;
renunciation of a management wbicb renders society unmanageable.
However, as Tofflar (1986) suggested, these voices pila up criticism without
baing radical, for no challange of basic premises and finalit^s is actually
proposed, as if ona 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 the-
matic grouping would give the following (obviously nonexhaustive) enu-
meration:
1. ChaUange to the established order, unilateral power, corporate mo-
nopoly of profits, instrumental conception of the amployaa . . . as so many
obstacles to collective creativity, adaptation, innovation, "creativa devi-
ance" (Atian, 1972, 1985; Clegg, 1975; DePree, 1989; Morgan, 1986; Or-
gogozo & 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 . . . ail 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; Tarkel, 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 uni-
verse . . . all this inspired, in good part, by the work of the Palo Alto School
(Aktouf, 1986b, 1989c; Chanlat & B6dard, 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
peraonally and ontologicaUy authorized to identify with and question the
firm, to raappropiiate the acte ha or she is assigned to do, to experience
tiiem as an exprassicn of his or her own dasiras (Chanlat & Dufour, 1985;
Croziar, 1989; Dejours, 19SQ, 1990; Pagds, Bonatti, & de Gaulejac, 1984;
SainsauUeu, 1983, 1987; Sievers, 1986a).
5. Recoraicteration of the relationsbip to time in industrial work, denun-
ciation c^ tha suffering and violenca (physical and symboUcal) inflicted on
workers by imposing a dehumanizing pace and fragmentation of time (Gas-
parini, 1^0; Hassard, 19^, 1990; Kamdem, 1990).
6. renunciation of a certain lack of e^cs and honesty toward amf^oy-
ees, G^ the damage done by moncq^dlizing the fruits of worker commitment
1992 Aktouf 417

and productivity, of the ^fish and short-term behavior of m a n a ^ r s . . . all

of which prevent the employee from Uvir^ and being treated as a human
person (Etzioni, 1989; Olive, 1987; Packard, 19B9; Solomon & Hansen, 1^5).
7. Challange to the narrow economism and utilitarianism with which
prevailing managartal theories and practices are imbued and which turn
managers and corporations into cynical predators with almost no consid-
eration or respact for personal integrity and dignity, whethar of employees,
consumers, or citizens with the rtght to a certain qirality of Ufe (CaiU6, 1989;
Etzioni, 1989; Galbraith, 1987; Mitroff & Pauchant, 1990; Monthoux, 1989;
Pfeffar, 1979; Rifkin, 1980).
8. Finally, tha mora and more persistent call for a kind of epistamoiog-
icai and methodoiogicai radicalism highlighting the complex, systemic, arKi
multidimensional nature of everything that has to do with per&ans 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; Mor-
gan, 1986; Varela, 1980; Vincent, 1990).
I consider the foregoing to be tha most important thames on the mora
radical side of current management theories. In fee following section, the
ways in which a more humanized firm is dasirabla, concaivable, and pcs-
sible (given the radical-humanist position just described and the attempts at
theoretical breakthroughs just enumerated) are discussed.

THE HUMANIZED FIRM: REASONS. CONDITIONS. AND OBSTACLES

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 quaUty), to offer concrete solutions to practitioners' pro-
ductivist concerns, and, finally, to create thair own unity. However, they do
head toward a definition of humanism close to the one chosen here b e a a u ^
the human baing is finally no longer viewed as a profitable tool but through
tha lens of basic discipUnes (anthropology, linguistics, etc.), which do not
study "production man" but the parson in his or her entirety. A human being
should be considered as irreparable from speech, symbols, meaning, «>
ciety, emotions, and free wiU (even if relative) before becoming a resource
for the firm and the "maximum production of exchange value." Such a
person sur^y 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 phikinthropic gesture, nor a Utopia,
but a i^cessity. Judging from tha persistence of authoritarian management
styles, many practitioners do not ^rem to understand the imperative need to
step out of the Taylorian rut. The fervent new cradtK of "revalorizatkai" of
"priceless human csapital" are irrefutabfe evideav:© of this need: The era erf
418 Academy of Munag^ment HeWew July

"the right man at the right plctce" is ov^, and the tkne has come fcs" the
employee who knaws how (and is allowed) to think, to react, to modify, and
so on. The time has cxime for the err^Dloyee to do more than tbe job requires
(e^jeciaily qualitatively).
This is tiie type of environment that the much sought-after firm will
build, because such a firm can result only through the combined eSorts of
individuals who are driven by the desire to axiperate, 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 compcssing it (including those
of its employes) in order to improve its ability to invent original solutions,
the sole nraponse to the complexity that is recognized as caie of the major
challenges facing today's mcmagers (Atlan, 1985; Morgan, 19^; 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 employe
and new work relations, firms, and management as well.
Th« employee. The idea of conceiving an adequate theoretical frcane-
work suitable to this renewed concern for meaningful work, creativity, part-
nership, interest and accountability, dialogue, initiative, personal commit-
ment, 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
ol alienated work, if e^imined, 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 ap-
propriation-commitment sought by corporate culture and total quality de-
pends on nothing less than putting an end to the following four estrange-
ments of alienated work recorded in Marxtet tradition: (a) estnangement
from the product—the employee has no control over the procera, the rea-
sons, the clients, the profits; (b) estrangement from the act of work—a break
perfected by Taylorism where employees are rediKsd to mus::nilar or men-
tal stores of energy who accomplish tc^ks that are never their own but
always dictated aikl 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 ihe natural
time of tiie seasons, the cycle of day and night, and th© biological clock,
siibstituting ihe satisfaction of natural needs with these dictated by mcaiey
and capital, to the detriment of nature itself; (d) Mtrangement from the
humon element—workers are estranged kam iheir essence as generic be-
ings with the free will to create their own surroundings arKl themselves, and
they are put in ciwiflict with OSIOTS who use and esploit th^n and who
then^elv^ ai^ alieruxted by tb» laws of cxipital.
All these phenomena must be undei^ood "V^aen the role of the meaning
of work in stimijilating worirais' mc^tvotion and interest ^ discussed, be-
cause it is ^aeae phraiomena that have rxdsbed industri<d work oi its mean-
ii^. Hestoiiiig meaning to w<xk wHl mean ti^ managem must accept—
after almcfflt a century of management aimed at negorting or mceking it—
1992 A^ouf 419

the fact that aUenation from work is at the very heart of the problem erf the
worker's commitment and motivatksn (Braverman, 1974; Dejours, 19K);
Pagdsetal., 1984; Pfeffer, 1979; Sievers, 1986a,b).
Almcffit all the authors of contemporary management best-sellers agree
that facilitating the development of a new type of employee means &e
evolution of a new kind of firm. Wheth^ it is caUed exceUent or third type or
open, it would still be a firm in which relations and the rules of the game wUl
have changed radically. To rephrase Orgogozo and Serieyx (1989), it is now
really imperative to envision something other than reliMitless attempts to
influfflice and change (essentially) only employee behavior, while almost
evCTything else remains the same. It has now become rracessary to cl-uange
the rules and the very nature of the power and control that trciditions per-
petuate in our organizations. After all, what eke is being asked if not th©
^tablishment 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 tiieir relation to thMr 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 self-
expr^ion as well as for the pursuit and satisfaction of personal desires and
interests that converge with those of the firm. Thus, the firm would b®;ome
a place for partnership and dialogue, a workplace no longer run on the
intenfflve use of work force.
Surprisingly enough, this new trend seems to encompass one of Marx's
most cherished principles: aJboiifion 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). TMs m the
case for Weit2man at the MassachusMits 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 th© salary
system is the rule; for Etchego^n (1990), who feels that salaries turn em-
ployees into mercenaries working in soultess enterprtees (the "mercencny"
element is seen here as an obstacle to individual commitment—a person no
longer satisfied with doing what is asked, who has neitiier interest rK3r
"soul").
At the present time, strong American and European trends are b^ng
shaped that will demand that an oiganizatlon become a plqce where the
employee can feel and act as a thinking, speaking, cmd qu^tioning suk^»ct
(Crozier, 1989; Dejours, 1980; Girin, 1990; Morgan. 1986; Sainsaulieu, 19B3).
This would he the i ^ o e where the emi^oyee could find his c? l^r essential
ovaikibility, interest, and creativity. In otlm words,ti::^3eare fee cwKiitUjns
for the cKlvent of vital worir (subjective and creative work, ccrpaide ci <xm-
stant adaptation and innovation), whicii Marx recogiuzod as the main char-
acteristic of humanity and which h& daplaced se^ng rs^^aoed by dead,
ossdEed wOTk—that of machines, obiecti^ working ccKviiUo]:^, moodmum
profits, and repetition.
420 Academy of Mcmagemenf Review July

Unlike Michel (1989), I will not take the risk of talking about the "free
man," for feat would suppo^ ihs existence of individuals with absolutely
free will—rational, infoimed, 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 projecte, and of desire,
which were invoked by Sartre (1948, 1966), Dejours (1980, 1990), and Evans-
Pritchard (1950). The latternotion, in particular, as I previoiisly 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 cooper-
ative and creative (or even simply interested in their work). Evans-Pritchard
also explained why recent theori^ of motivation fail: In these, human be-
ings 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 re-
placed by a theory that advocate that people must find by themselves and
for themselves reasons for working with more creaHvify than what is pres-
ently being asked of them.
How can researchers hope for such change, unless they question their
own premises? Such radicalism would, for example, require looking be-
yond 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 (recsons linked to job content, rela-
tions 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 per-
formance.
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 motiTCrte that person at ail 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 we)l vrith such ques-
tions. Besides, management has always rejected such questions as being
outeide of its sphere, considering them, at best, a subject for philosophy, or
some more or less subversive or left-wir^ sociology.
Is there any hope in finding an answer to the question: Why is the
W^tem employee so uninter^ted, unmotivated, and uncommitted when
compared to employees of other countri^? without asking the croroUary
questicm: How has the W^tem world gotten into this situation? The answers
to these questions obviously require some historical inv^rt^atian, that is, a
r^ntegration of the diachrony that has been evacuated by managerial
19^ Aktoui 421

functionaliKn's ahistorical stance. The cmswers lie in discovering the context

and events surrounding the birth of the 18th-century industrial ^iterprise
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 bc^3es in order
to achieve slightly more just and human working conditions (Braverman,
1974; Mantoux, 1959; NeuviUe, 1976, 1980). We also know that Marx based
his terrifying descriptions of 20th-century working conditions on the r&poT\s
of doctors and British govemment labor inspectors.
These descriptions point to the relevance of the element around which
Marxism has always centered—the analyste 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, Vosiensky [1980] has shown how, in so-cxiUed 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 pre-
tend that there are convergent intereste 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 sdences in the 20th century by explaining diat (because of
labor laws, among other things) industrial capitalism needs to resort to an
ever more finely tuned production of relative surplus vaJue (value obtained
by reducing the work time required through greater productivity resulting
from more discipline and better organization), because it is now very diffi-
cult (under pain of sanctions) to achieve absolute surplus ^ralue (value ob-
tained by the unilateral power to lengthen tlw work day and reduce Ihe
value of work). Thus, from management's viewpoint, the 19th csntury 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 countri^ such as Japan, it is becoinirig more
and more diffknalt to obtain relative surplus value solely by orgpmizlng and
disciplining labor and by making maamum profit from worit time (Braver-
man, 1974; Clegg & Dunkerley, 1977; Hasscffd, 1988; Tksmpson, 1967). The
use ol machine and even rdaots ^jems to hcp/e reached certain Um^;
obsolescence of equipn^nt is becomii^ mcffe cmd ttvsre rapid, and ^ e
human mind's inventivene^ and flexibility or© more than ©vet key Jtrctors
422 Academy of Managoment BeviBW July

to greater proittability. According to Mciury (1990), l<x Instanas, Icjjanese

coipomtions stress the importance of human creativity over robotized au-
tomation 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 inter-
ested agents. And interested employees would embrace the corporate
cause. But is such a change possible with the traditional management theo-
ries and spirit of the West? For even the continued exploitation of labor (by
relative surplus value) seems to imply, paradoxicalty, some kind of commit-
ment from ihe employee and, thus, greater equity to him or her,

CONCLUSION: NEITHER DICTATORSHIP OF THE mOLETARIAT NOR

FUNCTIONAL C O N ^ N S O S T

Although in this text I have mainly appealed to a strong neo-Mandst

framework as it relates to radical humanism and sometimes radical struc-
turalism, 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 expbitation 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 evc^utive are the forms and nature of pos-
sible contradictions. On the contrary, I have used the hypotheses and pre-
scriptions that are most popular in management and organizational theo-
ries to show that, failing a quantum leap to a conceptual framework more
akin to radical humanism than to functionalism, all these theories and pre-
scriptions would continue to fall short of their goals, I believe that, paradox-
ically, those managtog 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 renunciafion of power, of property-
related rights, of imilateral management "rights," and of exclusive privi-
leges. It also implies moving toward disaiienation of worJc, a finality of
cooperative and shared production, and an organization that fosters com-
mitment and interest through the meaning given to each person's daily
work.
Real and concrete participation in managemrait, in profits, in planning;
workers' greater autoncany and polyvalence: and workers' adequate secu-
rity ore now necessary to end the stagnation of productivity, I am obviously
not so naive as to believe that this will hsK)en by the gcodwill of owners
and mcoMoers, K will be ever more strongly imposed by counterperfor-
mance,bankruptcies,and crises, K will,fejrmany companies, be the price to
pay for survivxi. Because companies have r«3ched the ultimate limits of
Taylorism, their only way of Improvi:^ productivity seems to be making
room in file firms for ranployees to adequately e ^ r s s s &eir personal inter-
1992 Aktoui 423

e ^ , autoncHny, free will, and desires. It Is cdso a difiicult path, strewn with
traps, contnidicUons, and numerous hsrxas of leidstance, oftrai d^iply rcx>ted
in the unconscious, like those psychic prisons Morgan (1^6} mentioned, or
the ti^u^ons of immortality with delusions of grandeiir r^ermd to by Sie-
vers (19^b) and Kets de Vries and Miller (1984).
To borrow V. De Gaulejac's words (in a presentation b ^ m the Work!
Congress of Sociology, Madrid, July 9-14, 1990), 'Today it is as if the 'new
managements' were trying to transform the psytdiic driv^ feeding the in-
dividual's narcissism into added work and an additional source of relative
surplus value." Max Pagds (1984) spoke about seeking to fi^e Hi© 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 cffganiza-
tions. This is what Peters and Waterman and other corporate-culture apos-
tles have begun to piopose. But they have acted as if employees were
credulous, naive, and bereft of culture and vcdues, waiting for heroic lecKl-
ers to instruct them. This whole approach fe part of tiie refusal to make any
analysis in terms of conflict of interests and class confhct. However, it re-
mains a fact that, led by Ouchi, Petere 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-cOTisereual frame-
work.
Therefore, the new approaches remain inoperative and many organi-
zations are still at a dead end, as many succe^ful marKigement writers
bitterly point out (e.g., Etzioni, 1989r 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. "Hiis 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 Tayiorian firms of the West One of the
centuries-old contradictions of labor relations must be confronted; ihe con-
flicting Inter^ts of capital and labor. To recognize th^ contradiction is to lay
the groundwork for promoting labor to a position of active "co-
management" with capital. Th^ is basically what Taylor and Fayol weiB
seeking, as they spoke of ending the war or making peace between cqpital
and labor. This is also what current gurus of the new manag©n^nt advo-
cate. (Archier and Serieyx, 1984; Crozier, 1989; DePree, 1^9; Weitzman,
1984; and Peteis and Austin, 1985, all talk about sharing profits, dialogue,
and community.) But haw many bosses, especially in North America, woukl
be wiUing to admit tiiat it is not only necessary but cdso Just and tegittoate
to shcffe ihe firm's pro&ts with the employees? While mat losing sigrfit of the
fact that profit sharing is not in itself sufficient, or syiKjnynKii^ with a chtrn^
m the nature of p o w ^ or with d^cdiencdion, ot even ^ass with an &ad to
ej^loitaticHi, tt surely can be tertnod more equikdsle.
There is anofeer pOTticularly dratructive conticKlicticHi thtri consists in
wanting change wiihout really <dKingi^g- anytiUng, In wanting to l e w ^ -
tionize without a revcduticffi. (the term revolution is, for &axrapA&, us&i by
424 Academy of Management Review July

Peters [1987] and Crozier [1989] to refer to the change that must tote place
in maiKigenient today.) From corporate culture to management by syinbols;
from champions of the product to total quality, the aim is to change only one
thing: tiie behavior of employees, with no thought that the context must c^so
he dianged. 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 inescap-
able 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 Heil-
broner (1980) reminded us many years after Schumpeter (1942), whereas the
capitalist industrial order has enjoyed and still enjoys enormous and unde-
niable success, it must also face the equally enormous difficulties that are
the counterpart of its succ^s. 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 suppre^iion of private property, there still seems to be an inevitable
need to put aside complacent iunctional-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.
Ccsnpleteiy innovative forms of organization and management (heterodox,
original, making almost a clean break with the most time-honored Westem
managerial traditions) are appearing and are proving to be much more
dynamic and successful than one could have hopjed under current circum-
stances. These examples transform total failure or stagnation into kisting
success. I will mention only two. The first is that of an American firm, the
lohnsonville 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, 1993) explained how his company managed to
CEcom^plish a radical turnaround by sharing information with employees at
all levels and by in^ralving 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
th^ 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 smaE country town in eastern Quebec.
In 1963, they bought an abandoned p\ilp and paper mill. By 1989, their
business had close to a $1 billion tunrover. This ^»ctacular success in-
1992 Aktout 4^

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

performance. Some of these businesses were located outside of Ou6bec,
notcdaly in the United States and France. (It should first be mentioned that
the study of this multinational was based on over 500 days of fi^d work, over
200 in-depth interviews, and investigative visits to 14 plants. The Casaades
group includes 3,000 employees and approximately 30 plants.)
On first visiting a Cascades plant, the outside observer is struck by on
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; self-
management in everything; no supervisory function or ccffitrol; 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 unre-
lated 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 bom of a mother j i ^ like
us." These are typical comments of workers at Cascades.
Yet, if Cascades is measured against the traditional standards of pri-
vate enterprise, it can be concluded that its management methocte have
proven their mettle in all respects: Cascades has consistently achieved prof-
itability levels that compare quite favorably with the pulp and paper indus-
try 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 dramat-
ically "flattened the hierarchical pyramid"; given responsibilities to employ-
ees in just about all spheres; and created a context of dialogue, lt^ening,
generalized conviviality, and sharing (e.g., in profits, information, deci-
sions, actions, and management). Cascades is almost in its third generation
of manager-ovimers and has been enjoying s u c c ^ for more than 30 years;
it won the "Best Company Award" in the midst of the 1978-1984 economk;
crisis. The present CEO has a motto known throughout the cximpany: "I am
ready to give up profite to avoid laying off employees." Is there any i^ed to
Kcplain why just about everything is going very weD at Oascad^ {for fig-
urra, detail, factual data, methodology, see Aktouf, 1^9a,b,c, and^^ouf
& Chretien, 1987). Managers at Cascades (Ufce those at Jofensonvill© Sau-
sage) never tire of repeating that it is because of their pdUcies of candcar,
poi^rer sharir^, autoncany, employee security, and empkty^ee ^Kiring that
they can count on prcxiiuirtive, cdert, interested, and mptiyated vrajkets. To
426 Acxidemy of MaaagmsoBni Revtaw July

^led theco^ticcd l^rht on such "cases," researchers must turn to a conceptual

frcEtnework that is more radical-humanistic (and from cratain angles, radi-
cal-structuralist) than functioncdist (Aktouf, 1990; Aktouf 8c Chretien, 1987).
In the current recessionary con^Kt, we canirat fcdl to notice how even
blue chip corporations, such as Shell, IBM, and General Motors, resort to
ma^ive la^ffe and drastic rationalization programs. In effect, such man-
agerial practices take us back to a very ^lort-term and narrow-minded
functionalist view of the organization. In this article, however, I have tried to
demonstrate that diere 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 lor^er be consider^i as cost factors to be
"compressed" or "rationalized," but as allies to be won- Conversely, man-
agers must stop seeing themselves as the only people fit to think, to decide,
and to manage. Although the pursuit of profit is a legitunate objective, it
must not bKxsme the onJy factor to be considered and must stop being
perceived as a shori-term goal to be reached for the sole benefit of manag-
ers 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 stakshc^ders (managers, shareholders, and workeiB alike).
Admittedly, there is a pries to be paki for this renewed vision of man-
agement. First and foremost, managers must torfeit their long-cherished
and, at tim^ abusive, privileges to move toward a new form of organization
centered on the human being as well as on a flexible and creative ap-
proach. 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 to-
ward closely linked teams that ar© driven by a collective desire to succeed
"as a group." My point here is that we must supplement and, at times,
replace our traditional functiorKilist/individualistic views with concepts from
the radical jNfcirxist and neo-Mandst humanistic tradition, r e ^ r d l ^ of the
fact that INfctrxism has historicaUy been seen as the ideological nemesis of
Westem capitals economies.
I would submit that the neo-Marxist humanistic tradition is, by far, the
best foundation upon which to build a wcffk environment that festers cre-
ativity arKi productivity through the willing participation of all partis con-
cemed in a common endeavor. This type of environnrant is based on indi-
viducd as well as social justice, security, and ^baring.
FirKiUy, I would argue that the Taylorist vision of the employee as a cc^
factor and as a pas^ve cog hcB now become a liability that must be dis-
carded as quiddy c^ pmssiHe to make room iar a humanistic vision,
wh^nebcy the empk>yee is se&n as an adive and willing participant in the
organization. Thteisthe fa^ctical arKl id^icAogiccdpaiaeXo be paid ii Tire are
to halt and tevmse the process of industrial dedine that hcra leagued large
Nortii American corporations over Qie icrat decxide.
Aktou{, O. 19%a. Le tiawail iadtuM»l eoutn tbommmi [Ls industrial vrori. agcrinst human
nature?]. Alger: OPU ^ aCD.
Aktoui, O. 1^6b. La parole dans la vie de I'entreprise: Falts et m6iaits ISpeedi in organiza-
tional lite: Roles and nusdeeds]. GwOion. Bsnw intsmotionola (fo fftoHra. 11: 31-37.
Aktouf, 0.1989a. La niaiia9«inen(«iti«tnRlitloa«ti«iiouT«II«iiwiMrrradttkinalmanagement
and beyond; A matter ol renewal] (rev. ed., 1990). Montrial: Gadtan Morin.
Aktouf, O. 1989b. Qoestioning auibority and tmasgimHimg Momm moiiagwiJcrl "tobooc" on
tymbola ot a shmtg l^adenbip, Pc^ier pr^ented at the International Conference on Sym-
boUc leadership, INSEAD, Paris, June 28-30.
Aktouf, O. 1989c. Parole, productivite et travail [Speech, productivity and woit]. In Pioeaed-
Ings o/ (&• Rouadtoble on WoA and laugaagm Acts: 25-26. April, Penis, Ministdre de ki
Recherche, PmTIEM-CNRS.
Aktouf, O., 8c Chretien, M. 1987, Le cas Cascade. Comment se cr6e une culture d'entreprise
(Cascades: The birth of an organizational culture). Hsraa FronfOlw d* gwfton. 65-66:
156-166.
Aktouf, O. 19M. Le symbolisme et la culture d'entr^rise—Des abus conceptueia aux le^cHis du
terrain {Symbolism and organizational culture). In l.-F. Chaniat (Ed.), VSiuBrida dans
VotganlaaOon. Ua diniuuions ttubliim [The individual within the organization: The for-
gotten dimensions]: 553-588. Ou6bec—Paris: PUL-ESKA.
Althusser, L. 1971. Lenin ond philoMopby and othm •mxrs. London: New Left Books.
Althusser, L., Sc Balibar, E. 1970. fleodlng cajataL London: New Left Books.
Archier, G., & Serieyx, H. 1^4. L'snlmprita dn 3* tjpe [The corporation of the 3rd kind]. Paris:
Seuil.
Argyris, C. 1957. Penoaaiity and orponinflon. New York: Harper.
Argyris, C. 1980. Some limitations of the case method: Experiences in a management devel-
opment program. Aeadsmr o'McmagwnMnf Awiew, 5: 291-299.
Atian, H. 1972. Du bruit comme prindpe d'auto-organis<aion [Noise as a self-organizing prin-
ciple]. Communicotions, 18: 21-37.
Atlan, H. 1985. Ordre et ddsordre dans les systdmes naturels [Order and disorder in luitural
systems]. In A. Chanlat 8c M. Dufour (Eds.), la ttuptan «ntn VmbnpriM* ^ let btnamaa
rrhe rift between humcm beir^is and the c^fanizatior^: 119-137. Paris: Editions d'Organ-
isation.
Baran, P. A., & Sweeoy, P. M. 1966. Moocqw^c^tcd. New Yoik: Mon&ilyBeview Press.
Benson, J. K. 1977. Oiyanizations: A dialectical vie^w. Adadni^tafir* Sefamce Qmn^^. 22:
1-24.
Beynon, H. 1973. WorUng tor Ford. London: Penguin Boc^
Braverman, H. 1974. Labor mid monepolr ccgMtal. New York: Monthly Ra^^ew Press.
Brown, L R. 1 ^ . Suoe of HM WOM i990. Washu^bni. DC: WoridwaMi bi^ttute.
Buroway, M. 1979. McmnloctitrlDV cooMnt. C^iicago: Univ«Bi1y of Chicc^ Prose,
Burr, I. W. 1984. £l«Brafoir sfcrfUteol qmdl^ eoMtrat New Y(»l^ Nkoo^ Deddrar.
BurreU, G., & Moiaan. G. 1979, SoeioloaicalfWndlgBuendoigai^KtMoB^
H^nemon Educationcd Books. ,
Cc^ld, A. 1989. Ctmqam «fa la wdson vomab^ iiniiillwi<« dn MftBSS CA erifiad look at atUl-
tetrian int^Ugenc^—The MAUSS aumifsst]. Paiis: La Ddcnuverto.
428 Academy of Management Review luiy

Calvez, I. Y. 1970. Lo pmutm do Karl Marx flhe thiiddng of Karl Marx}. Paris: Seuil.
Cans, R. 19%. Le mradc poiifcttll« [The world as a garbage can]. Paris: First.
Chanlat, A., 8cB6dard, R. 19^1. Lagestion, une affaire de pcsole [Management as a language
act]. In j.-F. Chanlat (Ed), L'isdirida dans I'orgonisaHon. Lw dinwnsions oublUes [The
individual within the organizaticHi: The forgotten dimensions]: 79-99. Qii^bec: Presses de
rUniversit6 Laval.
Chanlat, A., & Dufour, M. 1985. La rupture mntn J'antrvpHse at l»s honuncs [The rift between
human beings and the organization]. Montreal: Oudbec-Am^rique.
Chanlat, ].-F., Sc S^uin, F. 1987. L'anolyw des orgoniscrtions, une ontliologie tociologlque
[The analysis of organizations: A sociological anthology] (vol. 2). Montreal: Gaetan Morin.
Chanlat. I.-F. (Ed.). 1990. L'indiWdu dcms I'organiMrtlon. La» dimensions ooBli^es [The indi-
vidual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]. Ou6bec: Presses de I'Universit^
Laval-
Clegg, S. R. 1975, Poww, myth ond dominotion. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Clegg, S. R. 1990. Pouvoir symbolique, langage et cnganisation (Symbobc power, language
and organization). In ].-F. Chanlat (Ed.), L'indiridu dons I'orsronisatlon. Lea dimensions
onWiies [The individual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]: 663—681. Que-
bec: Presses de ITJniversit^ Laval.
Clegg, S. R., & Dunkerley, D, 1977. Critical issues in orj^nijiations. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Crosby, P. B. 1979. Quality is free. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Crozier, M. 1989. L'enlreprise d Vicoule [Tlie listening corporation]. Paris: InterEditions.
Deal, T. E., 8c Kennedy, A. A. 1982. Coiporofe cu/hire: 7Iie rites and rituals of cot}>ora(e life.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dejours, C. 1980. Le tiavall, osure mentoJc [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 ].-F. Chanlat (Ed.), L'lndividu dons J'or-
gonisatlon. Les dimensions oubli<«s [The individual within the organization: The forgot-
ten dimensions]: 687-708. Quebec: Presses de I'Universit* Laval.
DePree, M. 1989. L«adenhip is on ort. New York: Doubleday.
Dumont, R. 1988. Un mondm intolirabk. L« JIMraiisme an qu«stion [An intolerable world: A
new look at liberalism]. Paris: Seuil.
Duncan, A. J. 1974. QvuttUy omtrol ond industrioJ stofisfics. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Etchegoyen, A. 1990. Lwt endcprisKS ont-mUea aa» dme? [Dc»s the corporation have a soul?].
Paris: Francois Bourrin.
Etzioni, A. 1989. Tba morol dimension: Toword o new eciHiomics. New York: Free Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1950. Social ontbropo/ogr. London: Cdwn & West.
Fromm, E. 1961. Marx's concept of SKin. New York: Frederick Ungar.
Galbraith, I. K. 1958. Tlie oHIurat socfetr. Boston: Houghton MiffUn.
Galbraith, |. K. 1987. Economies in panpecHvs. A ertOcal Ustoiy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
GtKparini, G. 1990. Temps et travail en Occident [Time and work in the Westem world]. In I.-F.
Chanlat (Ed.), I'lndlvidu dons rorffonisatfon. IM Aamulons onUtin Wne individual
within the oiganizcflkm: The feagotten dimensions]: 199-214. Oi^sec: Presses de I'Univer-
s i ^ Laval.
1992 Aktoui 429

Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. The entropy low and th» aconomic procsss. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press,
Girin, ]. 1982. Langage en actes et organisations [Language acts and the oigariization]. In
Economie et Soci^t^ [Economics and society]. The ISMEA Proceedings on Management
Sciences, 3(16): 1559-1591,
Girin, I. 1990. Probl^mes de langage dans les organisations [Language problems within the
organization}. In ].-F. Chanlat (Ed.), i'individu dons rorganinrtion. Les dimensions ou-
bli^es [The individual within the organization: The forgotten dimensions]: 37-78. Quebec:
Presses de TUniversit^ Laval.
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections tnm tbe prison notebooks. New York: International Pubbshers.
Hamecker, M. 1974. Les concepts ^i^menfoires du mort^riolisme iustraiqrue [The basic con-
cepts of historic materialism], Br\ixelles: Contradictions.
Hassard, J. 1988. Time, work ond orgonizotjon. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hassard, J, 1990. Pour un paradigme ethnographique du temps de travail [Toward an ethno-
graphic paradigm of time and work]. In ].-F. Chanlat (Ed.), L'Indiridu dons rorganisotion.
Les dimensions ouUi^es [The individual within the organization: The forgotten dimen-
sions]: 215-230, Quebec: Presses de I'Universitfe Laval,
Heilbroner, R. 1970. The wordiy phiiosop/iers. New York: Washington Square Press.
Heilbroner, R. 198Q. Marxism: For and again^. New York: Norton,
Herzberg, F, 1980. Humanities: Practical management education. Industiy Week. 206(7): 69-
72,
]ulien, C, 1990. La plan^te mise 6 sac [The pillaging of the planet], Le monde diplomotigue—
Maniire de voir: 8. Paris.
luran, I, M., & Gryna, F. M. 1980, OuctJi*? plonning and anoifsis. New York; McGraw-Hill
Kamdem, E. 1990. Temps et travail en Afrique [Time and work in Africa], In I.-F. Chanlat (Ed.),
L'indiridu dons J'orgoniscition. Les dimensions oubliies [The individual within the orga-
nization: The forgotten dimensions]: 231-255. Quebec: Presses de rUniversit6 Laval.
Kets de Vries, M., 8c Miller, D. 1984. The neurotic orgtmlsation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kibnan, R. H., Saxton, M. ],, 8c Serpa, R. 1985. Gt^ing control of the corporate cuJture. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Kolakowski, L. 1968. Toward a Marxist bumonism. New York: Grove Press.
Kolakcjw^, L. 1978. Main currents of Marxism (vols. 1-3). London: Oxford University Press.
Kolakowski, L. 1987. Histoire du morxisme [A history of Mandsm] (vol. 1). Paris: Fayard.
Lee,]. A. 1980. The goJd ond tJiegorboge In monogementtbeories and {HVacHptiMis. Athens:
Ohio University Press.
Lovelock, ]. F. 1979. Goio. o new looJc of fife on eortb. New York: Norton.
Lucaks, G. 1971. History and class consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mandel, E. 1974. Althusser corrige Marx [Aithusser corrects Mcirx]. Incollectif, ContnAitbasser
[Against Althusser]: 261-285. Paris: U.G.E.
Mantoux, P. 1959. Lo r^roluUon indosfrieUe du XVIIf* sf*cfo [The industrial mvolution of the
18th centuryl Paris: Genin.
Masbw, A. 1954. MoHration ond pervmaJity. New York: Harper.
Maslow, A. 1969. Toward humanistic biology. Ameidcan Psycbaio0Mt. 24: 724-735.
Maury, R. 1990. Les pcrtrons japonois parient Uhe Japanese bosses on management]. Paris:
Seuii.
430 Academy of Mrniagemenl Review Fuly

Michel, S. 1989. Peot-on g ^ w Jes moHwaOaut [Can motivation be managed?]. Paris: PUF.
Mine, A. 1990. L'orgenf fou [Mad money]. Paris: Grasset.
Mintzberg, H. 1973. The notun of moiM^ricd work. New Yodc: Harp&c & Row.
Mintzbeig, H. 1989. Inside our strange wmid of orgonisoHons. New Yoric: Free Press.
Mitred, I. I., & Pauclumt, T. 1990. We're soMgand powertul nolbing bod ccni hcq^ton to us.
New York: Birch Lane Press.
Monthoux, P. GuiUet de 1989. The momi pbilosophf of manogement. Unpublished manu-
script, Stockhobu University.
Morgan, G. 1986, fmoges of orgtmiiotions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Neuville, ]. 1976. Lo condition oarrUn ou XOC ^Me. L'ounier objet [Wc^king conditions in
the 19th century: The worker as an object]. Paris: Vie ouvridre.
NeuviUe, ]. 1980. La condition ouvri^ie ou XET sl^le. L'aartier suspect [Working conditions
in the 19th century: The worker as a suspect], Paris: Vie ouvri^re.
Nord, W. R. 1974. The failure of current c^pbed behavioral science: A Marxian perspective.
/oumo/ of ^ p l i e d Beborioiol Science, 10: 557-578.
Olive, D. 1E^7. Jast rewards: Tbe case td ethical reform in buslnm. Toronto: Key Porter Books.
Orgogozo, I., & Serieyx, H. 1989. Ciuxnger ie changement [Changing change]. Paris: Seuil.
Ouchi, W. G. 1981. Thmory Z: How American business can meet tbe /opanese cbo/Jenge.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
Packard, V. 1^9. Tbe uJtra ricb: How much is too mucb? London: Little, Brown.
Pag6s, M., Bonetti, V,, St de Gaulejac, V. 1984. L'empWse de rorganisotion [The domination of
the organization] (3rd ed.). Paris: PUF.
Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. 1981.. The art ot Japanese maaagement. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Passet, R. 1979. L'economiqne et ie riront [Economics and the bving]. Paris: Payot.
Perrow, C. 1979. OrganisotionaJ tbetnr in o sociefy of oigtiniiatitHis. Paper presented at the
symposium: L'administration publique: Perspectives d'avenir [Pubbc administration: Fu-
ture perspectives], Quebec.
Perrow, C. 1986. ConpJex orgonisotions; A criticol eMmry. New York: Random HouBe.
Pestei, E. 1988. L'bomme et lo cioisscnKe, flapped au C]ub de Rome [Man and growth: Report
to the Club of Rome]. Paris: Economica.
Peters. T., & Waterman, R. 1982. In seorcb of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
Peters, T. i%7. Thriving on cboos. San Francisco: Knopf.
Peters, T., & Austin, N. 1985. A passion ot excellence. New York: Random House.
Pfeffer, R. 1979. WbrUng for copitoHsm. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rifkin, J. 1980. The entropy ^^m: A neir world rfow. New York: Bantam Books.
Sainsaulieu, R. 1983. La regulation culturelle des ensembles organist [The cultural regulation
of organizations]. L'anaie socteJogiqn* [The Sodc^ogical Year!, 33: 195-217.
Scdnsaulieu, R. 1987. Ddveloppament social et creation insthutionnella en entrepiise [Social
develc^ment and institutional creation in organizations]. OtgatUsofion et raanagsment en
tpms&mlsl [Organaa&»i and tnanagaenent in tjuestion]. [Collective woric e d i t ^ by Dom-
inique D^jeuxl: 2)3-221. Paris: L'Hannattan.
Sartr«, I.-P. 1948. Ejdsi»nHaUsm end bmaatOsm. Lcmdon: Mediuwi.
1992 Attouf 431

Sartm, I.-P. 1966. Being and n ^ b i n g n e n . New York: Wa^iington Square Press,
Sartre, J.-P. 1976. Criti<pie of d^ecOcal reman (vol. 1). london:^ New Leitt Books.
Schein, E. 1985. OigoniuticHaal csltnie and l e a d e n b ^ San Francisco: Josaey-Bass.
Schertenbach, W. 1988. neI>aBlngRMifeto9aalItraiidpradbe(iT«r.Wa^iingtc»i,DC: CEE
Press.
Schumpeter, ]. 1942. Copiftilism. soc^aUm cmd demoemcT. New Yoric: Harper &. Brothers.
S6guin, F., & Chanlat, ].-F. 1983. L'ona^rse des oiganisation*, une onOologie SMioIoglfue
[The analysis of organizations: A sockslogical aillhologyl (vol. 1). Montreal: GaStan MoHn.
Serieryx, H. 1989. Le tiro mipris [Zero contempt]. Paris: InterEctitions.
Sievers, B. 1986a. Beyond the surrogate of motivation, ^rganiiotion Studies, 7: 335-351.
Sievers, B. l%6b. Participation as a collusive quarrel over immc^bality. Omgon. fheioumol of
SKX9S, 1(1): 72-82.
Silverman, D. 1971. Tbe tbectff of orgoniiertioBS. Lc^cm: Heineman Educatior»3l Books.
Solomon, R. C , & Hanson, K. R. 1M5. It's good business. New York: Atheneum.
Stayer, R. 1990. How I learned to let my workers lead. Harroid Businm Review. 68(6): 66-83.
Terksl, D. 1972. Working. New York: Avon Books.
Thompson, E. P. i967. Time, work, d^cipline and industrial cc^talism. Pa^ and Pmwat,
38(December); 56-97.
Toifler, A. 1980. Tbe tbixd ware. New York: Wabam Morrow.
Toffler, A. 1986. TheodoptiTe coiporation. New York; McGraw-Hill.
Turner, B. A. (Ed.). 1990. Oivoniiotionol symtx^ism. Berlin-New York: Walter de G ^ y t o .
VaiBla, F. ]. 1980. Principles of blologteol autonomy. New York: Elsevier Ncith Holland.
Villette, M. 1988. L'homme qai ctoycdt aa management [The man who bebeved in manage-
ment]. Paris: Seuil.
Vincent, I. C. 1990. De* systiraes et des hommes [Of systems and men]. Paris: Les Editions
d'organisation.
V c j ^ e n ^ , M. 1^0. La aomenklotuiti [The nomenklatura]. Pcois: Pierre Belfond.
Waterman, R. 1^7. Tbe mnewoi factor. New York: Bantam.
Weitzman, M. 1984. The sbom eccmomy; Conqpiering stagfloticm. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Oxoat Aktoof received his Ph.D. fiDm the Ecole d ^ Hautes Etudes Commercicdes, the
business feiculty of the University cA Montreal, where he is an associate professcH* d
management. His reseordi interests Include organizational culture, project manage-
ment, critical research on management theory and practice, aa well as symboUmn and
the discursive a^)ect of management.