Governmentality Matters: Designing an Alliance Culture of Inter-Organizational Collaboration for Managing Projects

The concept of governmentality was developed by Michel Foucault to address the specificity of contemporary neo-liberal forms of governance — premised on the active consent and subjugation of subjects, rather than their oppression, domination or external control. These neo-liberal forms of governance are evident in new forms of alliance contracting in the construction industry. We review the major innovations in organization form in the sector, before considering the specific management practices of surveillance and control that are typically associated with governance in these projects. Project management has been a historically evolving field. This paper reports on an example of governmentality applied to the practice of project management. While governmentality refers to the design of project governance as an activity, the management of projects as a mode of organization, irrespective of the mode of governance, is highly complex and uncertain. These themes have already been widely addressed in organization theory. Here, we draw on recent treatments of them that combine transaction costs and resource dependence perspectives. Moreover, we argue that projects also display an acute sense of temporality, as Schutzian-influenced approaches have explored. In the context of governmentality, complexity, uncertainty and temporality are addressed in a specific and highly innovative project management. The research methods used in the ethnography are spelt out, as well as the methods used in constructing the interpretation of the case. Economies in authoritative surveillance have been sought through building collaborative commitment and transparency into the moral fibre of a project. The governmental tools used to do this are a strong project culture, monetized key performance indicators, and a stake-holder conception of the project to bind different organizational stakeholders together. The case does not record an unqualifiedly successful project: the governmentality that was constructed had limits, as the case spells out. The failure indicates some issues that the stakeholder theory of the firm will need to address. We conclude that governmentality projects premised on stakeholder conceptions are particularly susceptible to discrepancies between ambition and outcome. In such a context, the constant injunction to improve may itself be an integral part of the governmental method. Hence, governmentality is particularly appropriate for understanding quality management issues.

[1]  A. Gouldner,et al.  Metaphysical Pathos and the Theory of Bureaucracy , 1955, American Political Science Review.

[2]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  Power, Rule, and Domination: A Critical and Empirical Understanding of Power in Sociological Theory and Organizational Life. , 1976 .

[3]  R. D'amico Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison , 1978, Telos.

[4]  David M. Rasmussen,et al.  The final Foucault , 1987 .

[5]  Gibson Burrell,et al.  Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis 2: The Contribution of Michel Foucault , 1988 .

[6]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[7]  G. Sewell,et al.  `Someone to Watch Over Me': Surveillance, Discipline and the Just-in-Time Labour Process , 1992 .

[8]  Subjectivity and government , 1993 .

[9]  J. Barker Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams , 1993 .

[10]  S. Clegg Weber and Foucault: Social Theory for the Study of Organizations , 1994 .

[11]  R. V. Krieken,et al.  Proto-governmentalization and the historical formation of organizational subjectivity , 1996 .

[12]  C. Casey Corporate Transformations: Designer Culture, Designer Employees and `Post-Occupational' Solidarity , 1996 .

[13]  Norman Jackson,et al.  Labour as Dressage , 1998 .

[14]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

[15]  Christophe Midler,et al.  Beyond Advanced Project Management: Renewing Engineering Practices and Organisations , 1998 .

[16]  David J. Cooper,et al.  Business Planning as Pedagogy: Language and Control in a Changing Institutional Field , 1998 .

[17]  Rolf A. Lundin,et al.  Conceptualizing a Projectified Society Discussion of an Eco-Institutional Approach to a Theory on Temporary Organisations , 1998 .

[18]  G. Sewell The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. , 1998 .

[19]  Innovation in Project Management Using Industry as the Laboratory , 1998 .

[20]  Christine M. Beckman,et al.  An Alternative to Bureaucratic Impersonality and Emotional Labor: Bounded Emotionality at the Body Shop , 1998 .

[21]  Mark W. Dirsmith,et al.  The Calculated and the Avowed: Techniques of Discipline and Struggles over Identity in Big Six Public Accounting Firms , 1998 .

[22]  John M. Jermier Introduction: Critical Perspectives on Organizational Control. , 1998 .

[23]  B. Townley Beyond Good and Evil: Depth and Division in the Management of Human Resources , 1998 .

[24]  Pasquale Gagliardi,et al.  Exploring the Aesthetic Side of Organizational Life , 1999 .

[25]  A. Romme,et al.  Domination, Self-Determination and Circular Organizing , 1999 .

[26]  Ken Starkey,et al.  Foucault, Management and Organization Theory , 1999 .

[27]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Organizing and the Search for Excellence: Making Sense of the Times in Theory and Practice , 1999 .

[28]  J. Marks Foucault, Franks, Gauls , 2000 .

[29]  Power and Authority, Resistance and Legitimacy , 2000 .

[30]  Power, Ideology and Legitimacy , 2000 .