Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFillol, Charlotte
dc.date.accessioned2010-01-12T13:12:32Z
dc.date.available2010-01-12T13:12:32Z
dc.date.issued2008-08
dc.identifier.urihttps://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/2891
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjecttransgressionen
dc.subjectpoweren
dc.subjecttransgressionen
dc.subjectpouvoiren
dc.subject.ddc658.4en
dc.subject.classificationjelM12en
dc.subject.classificationjelJ52en
dc.subject.classificationjelJ24en
dc.subject.classificationjelM54en
dc.titleAmbivalence of transgression: building on Michel Foucault's approach of power in organizationen
dc.typeCommunication / Conférence
dc.description.abstractenThe aim of this paper is to understand how rebellion is an ambivalent phenomenon in organization which alienates and liberate at the same time. Michel Foucault’s approach of power in organization is used to determine the distinctive characteristic of this special kind of rebellion. Two opposite conceptions of rule and transgression seem to dominate today. We argue that the work of Michel Foucault proposes another vision of compliance and rebellion causes and effects. Those characteristics are then confronted with our case study of a nuclear electricity plant. In our study we focus on a special kind of rebellion: rule transgression, that is to say action that contradicts the official rule (e.g., laws, internal rules, superior’s orders) or norms (often tacit meta-rules). We found evidence of transgression practices known by everyone (management and subordinates), tacitly tolerated, but not explicitly recognized. Those practices are freely realized by workers and motivated by the desire to accomplish the task. But at the same time, such practices may be interpreted as risk transfer devices luring workers into illusory freedom. Accomplishing daily transgressions, workers actually endorse all risks of failure and accident as official rule remains the reference. Rebellion is thus producing a surreptitious dependence of the workers from their superiors. To conclude, our paper seeks to complete the narrow critical approach of rebellion and compliance in organizations. Rebellion and compliance must not be seen as homogeneous devices of liberation or alienation, but as ambivalent political tools for actors in organizations.en
dc.description.sponsorshipprivateouien
dc.subject.ddclabelDirection d'entrepriseen
dc.relation.conftitleAcademy of managementen
dc.relation.confdate2008-08
dc.relation.confcityAnaheimen
dc.relation.confcountryÉtats-Unisen


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record