Global Journal of Human Social Science, C: Sociology and Culture, Volume 23 Issue 2

(delayering)… networks, targets, benchmarking entrepreneurship and self motivation’ (Hopfel, 2011, p. 41). The essential problem with bureaucracy was seen to be its clear division of roles and responsibilities. In particular, only the top organisational layers possess the complete picture, which entails long periods of stagnation and routine between restructurings. There is no way of making change continual, gradual and flexible (Hecksher, 1994). Another problem with bureaucracy was the clear assignment of responsibilities and roles generating a ‘not my job’ attitude. This utilises only a small portion of employee knowledge that may greatly improve performance yet lies beyond their immediate responsibility. Flexibility concerning products, threats and opportunities thus requires the dissolution of hierarchies, free flow of information and collective management. Managers were encouraged to draw on informal relationships and tacit knowledge for the benefit of the organisation, but these lie necessarily beyond official bureaucratic control, based on personal relationships and trust. According to the ideal post bureaucratic pattern, rules are replaced by consensus and dialogue, responsibility is distributed on the basis of ability rather than hierarchy, and the boundaries of the organisation become open and flexible. Major management gurus such as Handy and Nesbit thus hailed post bureaucratic organisations as the proper response to the ‘age of unreason’ in which endemic uncertainty and perpetual rapid change characterise the business world. It was claimed that flattening hierarchies would lower costs, raise productivity, improve the knowledge base of operations and increase the organisation’s ability to respond to shifting conditions. Information technology was also seen as a means to restructure organisations around flexible networks and teams devoid of clear hierarchies and boundaries, in order to cope with an unstable and uncertain environment, and encourage a more independent, creative and committed personnel (Clarke & Clegg, 2000). Therefore, every management fad has emphasised a postmodernist blurring of boundaries and mixing of knowledge bases through direct communication across specialties, hierarchies and loyalties (Hecksher, 1994). The flattening of hierarchies and transition to a post Fordist mode of production and post bureaucratic organisations never meant, however, that power and control became weaker or less concentrated. Those in position to assign the goals of networks or establish cooperation between networks naturally hold positions of power within them (Castells, 2011). Internally, this puts senior management, which sets the goals of projects and teams, in a clear position of power, and fortifies the role of project managers who assemble those teams, so it always pays to stay connected with them. Externally, as setting up networks of many organisations requires extensive resources and infrastructure, large transnational corporations often stand at the heart of such networks dealing in transaction rich exchange. In fact, behind the post bureaucratic notions of flattened hierarchies, teamwork, informality and self motivation lie sophisticated technologies of control that enhance managerial power to a greater extent than any bureaucracy. Control within teams and networks is often tighter and more comprehensive than bureaucratic control because it operates on the basis of personal commitment and peer supervision. Keeping a close managerial watch on the work process becomes unnecessary while employees operate under constant oversight by their peers as well as surveillance mechanisms. At the same time, in line with the managerialist proclivity for the shadows, such control is less discernible and portrayed as employee empowerment (Barker, 1993). Management theory describes this type of governance as enabling workers to use their skills autonomously in a range of activities, and a response to employees’ demand for self fulfilment. However, as work turns into a calling, workers are made responsible for their motivation and enthusiasm. These are indicated by willingness to accommodate themselves to the changing demands and programmes of management. They must be ever ready to perceive every change as if derived from their own choice and as providing them with new opportunities for development. Their involvement and self fulfilment must always remain consistent with the benefit the business (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002). Paradoxically, employment seekers must reorganise their biography falsely and feign enthusiasm in order to fit to the managerial model of authenticity and self fulfilment. If the earlier normative control methods of the 1980’s called on managers to generate motivation and commitment by creating a common corporate culture, later it has become employees’ own responsibility to muster and demonstrate them. They are forced to think of their lives as an arena of experimental quest for personal identity, which only reinforces the restructuring and deregulation of the employment conditions at their expense. The demands upon them in terms of involvement, flexibility and entrepreneurship are intensified without compensation, becoming a way of demonstrating their self worth (Honneth, 2004). This is best exemplified in the recently popular human resources management rhetoric and practices that encourage workers to ‘be themselves’ and ‘have fun’ at work. There is a new emphasis on diversity, dissent, personal expression and authentic feelings, especially those that were once barred from the bureaucratic organisation, like the expression of fun. Current human resource methods and practices © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 82 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Epochal Change and Second Modernity as a Sociocultural Manifestation of Managerialism