Subjectivity and power are important concepts for understanding corporate culture engineering in critical organization studies. Although recent research indicates that many workers do identify with the organization as a result of these management strategies, they have also shown that some workers resist through dis-identification, in particular cynicism. Managerialist literature views cynicism as a psychological defect that needs to be `corrected', while a radical humanist approach constructs cynicism as a defence mechanism, a way of blocking the colonization of a pre-given self. We highlight a third and increasingly dominant perspective that suggests cynicism is a process through which employees dis-identify with cultural prescriptions, yet often still perform them. Cynical employees have the impression that they are autonomous, but they still practice the corporate rituals nonetheless. We label this the `ideology' interpretation because in dis-identifying with power, it is inadvertently reproduced at the same time. We argue that this approach to cynicism raises significant implications for key concepts in organization studies: those of power, subjectivity and resistance. The implications we pursue are that cultural power may work through dis-identification (rather than just identification), subjectivity may be radically `external' (rather than something `within') and thus what counts as disruptive resistance must be re-evaluated.

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent AbstractThis paper reviews and evaluates the concept of power in management and organization science. In order to organize the extant literature on this topic, we develop a framework that identifies four faces of power (i.e., coercion, manipulation, domination and subjectification) and four sites of power (i.e., power enacted 'in', 'through', 'over' and 'against' organizations). This allows us to evaluate assumptions both shared and contested in the field. Building on the review, the paper then points to potentially novel areas of research that may extend our understandings of organizational power in management and organization science.

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. This essay argues the opposite. Human capital theory implies that employees should bear the costs (and benefits) of their investment. Highly individualized training and work practices are an inevitable corollary. Self-employment, portfolio careers, the 'gig economy' and ondemand business models (including Uber and Deliveroo) faithfully reflect the assumptions that inform human capital theory. I term this the radical responsibilization of the workforce and link it to growing economic insecurity, low productivity, diminished autonomy and worrying levels of personal debt. The essay concludes by proposing some possible solutions. Permanent repository link

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent AbstractThis paper reviews and evaluates the concept of power in management and organization science. In order to organize the extant literature on this topic, we develop a framework that identifies four faces of power (i.e., coercion, manipulation, domination and subjectification) and four sites of power (i.e., power enacted 'in', 'through', 'over' and 'against' organizations). This allows us to evaluate assumptions both shared and contested in the field. Building on the review, the paper then points to potentially novel areas of research that may extend our understandings of organizational power in management and organization science.

This paper aims to extend research about high-commitment management practices in tightly controlled work environments. It does so by studying developments in normative control in a call-centre. Contra conventional normative controls (which emphasize shared values and collective identification), we observed employees being encouraged to 'just be themselves', especially in relation to lifestyle differences and diverse identities. Although this afforded some important freedoms, we take a critical view. The managerial discourse sought to harness workers' pre-existing identities in a way which captures their 'sociality' (thereby enhancing the quality of interactive emotional labour). At the same time, it detracts attention from the dysfunctions of extant call-centre controls associated with technology, bureaucracy and culture management.Building on a study of workers' experiences, this paper provides an analysis of a significant development in normative control. It presents a critical appraisal of its relationship to conventional controls and shows how 'freedom' in the call-centre and other contexts where such regimes prevail is not all that it seems.