While the articles these past couple weeks have revolved around power and politics, very few have analyzed what happens with power at the end of the alternative. My argument is that power itself is fluid, it can be neither created nor destroyed, but instead must be either given or taken from individuals. This becomes very similar to Perrow’s analysis of power being zero-sum, but is more focused on the individual level then the organizational level. If a particular individual in an organization has the power to do something, then that another individual in the organization must either be denied that power, or controlled by that power. An attempt to level out organizational power relations would reduce the power of one individual an equivalent amount that it increases the power of other individuals within the organization.

            The postmodern take on power is that the use of it is controlling and needs to be analyzed and deconstructed. The control over others that results from the use of power infringes upon personal autonomy and creates a denial of the self for those individuals who unquestionably fall prey to the use of power over them. Foucault would probably argue that attempts to overthrow a current power structure becomes a tautology through the recreation of another power structure in which control occurs in either an overt or covert way.

Morgan’s attempt to deconstruct power and politics through imaginization ultimately masks a new form of power that goes ignored through his analysis. The best example of this can be witnessed in the work he did for chapter 8 in which the managers of the nurses he is working with express their fear that the nurses will become too empowered by his seminar and attempt a revolution within the organization. His reaction to this is to approach this situation head on by confronting the groups with this situation. While the perception of the nurses he was working with do not have this revolutionary mindset, his willingness to confront the issues at the request of managers reinforces the power the managers still possess over the imaginization process. If the imaginization process moves away from what was expected by the managers involved, it becomes the facilitator’s responsibility to bring the topic back into the focus of the intent of management, not necessarily that of the workers.

The second way that Morgan falls prey to reifying power relations is through his use of the reimaginization process. After the initial creative process occurs of generating metaphors, Morgan chooses one or two metaphors for the groups to continue elaboration on. His choose of these metaphors guides the individuals and groups into various different interpretations of what “should” be done within their organization. The process of him choosing these images to elaborate on inevitably guides these groups into various different perspectives. While it is still the individual group generating these metaphors the act of picking a particular metaphor to elaborate on, exerts a form of power and control over the groups by focusing the imaginization process on metaphors that Morgan feels would best fit the desired situation from what he was informed should be accomplished prior to the beginning of the discussions. This focus denies the power of the groups to select a metaphor that they may feel would best fit or alter the situation, which may not always be in the direction that those in charge of the organization intended the process to go.

The final method that Morgan potentially falls prey to, maybe not necessarily reifying the old power structure but generating a new power structure that is potentially as dangerous as the old one, is through Janis’s interpretation of groupthink. Throughout Morgan’s book there is never really a questioning of the imaginization process, with the exception of the one mentioned above. Part of the reason that Morgan chooses to generate these metaphors through groups is to generate a form of cohesion within the organization along with a unified vision of organizational goals. This process of generating conformity through the use of groups is an important aspect of Janis’s criticism of groupthink. The symptoms that Janis outlines become prevailent through the imaginization process.

First, these groups become firm believers in the imaginization process and the results from that process. If not taken carefully, individuals involved in these processes may begin to believe that any issue that arises can easily be resolved through the metaphor generated, or constructing another group to reimaginize the situation. This is what Janis describes as invulnerability. Organizations begin to feel that they can handle extreme situations through the imaginization process that may otherwise place the organization in harms way. Another mode in which invulnerability becomes a factor is through the initial generation of the metaphor. Morgan seems to give off the perception that the individuals after the creation of the metaphor become firm believers in its application, which may then mean they attempt to apply the metaphor to a situation in which things would only become worse.

The second symptom comes through what Morgan would probably describe as a misinterpretation of the imaginization process. In chapter 8, some of the complaints about the way the organization was applying imaginzation came from lack of understanding of the metaphors from outside the nursing department. This lack of understanding was a result of a new language that developed in order to describe the situation to “outsiders,” many times creating a situation where “outsiders” could either not survive in the department, or other departments did not know how to work with nursing. This is what Janis would describe as pressure to conform other departments and individuals within the department to a unified vision, those persons without the unified vision would be left behind. Another method the symptom of pressure could potentially become present is through the retreats that Morgan speaks of. While certain individuals may be allowed to take these retreats, the entirety of an organization or department within an organization probably would not be able to attend. This leaves the imaginization process to a select few who are then expected to return with an image and apply it to the situation. Individuals who may not agree with the image could potentially be forced into this thought process by the pressures of those who attended the retreat.

The final symptom that I am going to cover comes as a result of the “unified” vision that Morgan speaks of at the end of the imaginization process. This is what Janis describes as unanimity. Individuals within the organization are left with the perception that everyone holds a particular viewpoint and thus critically examining situations becomes squelched out of fear of being labeled an outsider or not working with the team. This suppression of dissention prevents alternative solutions to situations from being voiced that may potentially retrieve a better outcome then those solutions generated by the “unified” vision.

The neo-Weberian approach to power is a bit different then the postmodern approach. It argues that it is not necessarily all uses of power that are flawed, but the overuses of power is where problems lie. Perrow outlines several examples of both the over use of power, and the potential under use of it. For example, he is very critical of the use of the Hawthorne Experiments as a means to control workers through the humyn relations model. At the same time, he is critical of the tenure process as being a means to continue the employment of individuals who might otherwise be released from the organization due to incompetence and/or inability to adapt to a given situation. Perrow would argue that this lack of use of power within the organization inevitably hurts the achievement of goals.

Perrow’s alternative approach to power stems from three sources. The first is informal power used by individuals within the organization to control other individuals in which they have no formal authority over. This is what Perrow describes as “power over.” He argues that in order to rectify this situation an organization needs to set up formal bureaucratic control specifically outlining the power an individual has in the organization based upon their position in the bureaucratic hierarchy. Issues with this begin to arise when organizations begin to institute within their formal structure a form of power that goes beyond the institutional goals and interfere with the personal lifestyles of the workers. Examples of this are outlined in the Fischer article in which Ford instituted a policy that allowed inspectors to enter the homes of their employees in order to monitor their daily habits outside of work.