Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Managerial capitalism represents a form of capital accumulation and organizational control in which managers are the central agents of power. Labor, technology, resources, and administrative structures are coordinated by a cadre of legal-rational managers who do not necessarily own the means of production under their governance (although this is changing with the increasing use of stock-option incentive systems). With the advent of managerial capitalism as a dominant social structure of accumulation, critical scholarship has concentrated on managers as the agents of exploitation rather than simply the owners of capital. The inimical effects associated with the administered society and the spread of managerialism (e.g., enterprise, commercialization, subcontracting, etc.) have also received much attention. Some writers argue that managerial capitalism is on the decline as flexibility, networks, and participation supplant centralized command and control structures. Others maintain that managerialism has simply reconfigured itself by instigating everyday regimes of selfmanagement without necessarily changing the uneven distribution of resources underpinning the modern corporation.

Conceptual Overview

In his influential treatise on the development of American capitalism, Alfred Chandler argued that early forms of capitalist enterprise were controlled by entrepreneurial owners. With the growth in size and complexity of organizations, a major break emerged between the ownership and control of organizations. A managerial revolution occurred in which the invisible hand of the market was replaced by the visible hand of managers, who invested capital, organized labor via bureaucratic structures, and reported to directors or shareholders. Managerial capitalism trades on calculability, regimentation, standardization, and transparency and engenders organizations that are massive in scale and scope. Chandler echoes a point made by Max Weber that bureaucracy and its means-ends rationality are now fundamental features of modern capitalism. While the heroic figure of the hands-on entrepreneur is still an important part of the corporation's self-image, the bland organizational man described by William Whyte is the real face of capitalism.

This management revolution thesis perhaps overstates the break between ownership and control, given the continuing relevance of personal and family control patterns among the corporate elite. But the emergence of management as a key player in the capital accumulation process is now well documented. This shift also involved ideological permutations. As Rinehart Bendix argued, early owner-operator industrialists justified their power via social Darwinist claims to natural superiority and heritage. Managerial capitalism, on the other hand, legitimates power by way of expertise, rationalism, and meritocracy. The influence of Frederick Winslow Taylor's scientific management has been profound in this regard, as it created a gulf between the rational and irrational, the thinkers and the doers. Although the ideology of managerialism has proved to be very powerful, it was contested from the outset. Labor movements in most industrialized economies challenged the assumptions underpinning managerial control. Indeed, often omitted from historical accounts of managerialism is the role that resistance played in shaping its form, objectives, and strategies. Richard Edwards even suggests that managerial capitalism was molded more by class struggle than by any inherent and self-defined expertise.

Critical Commentary and Future Directions

In the field of critical organization studies, managerial capitalism has raised three important concerns relating to corporate governance, wealth distribution, and means-ends rationality. As senior managerial functions have assumed a dominant role in the day-to-day operations of corporations, their autonomy from shareholders, workers, and regulatory bodies has increased. The recent spate of large-scale corporate corruption scandals in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere has led some to suggest that managerial power is virtually unbridled. The institutionalized corporate illegality uncovered in Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Andersen, for example, stemmed in part from a managerial ethos of unmitigated license. Robert Jackall's classic ethnographic account of senior managers in the banking industry reveals the ways in which ethical reason is warped by the anthropological rituals of managerial capitalism. Concern has also been raised about the organizational reward structures that shore up managerial capitalism. In the United States today, for example, CEOs on average enjoy a salary that is 521 times greater than that of the hourly wage earner. In 1980, it was 41 times greater. And the final concern pertains to the apparently boundless expansion of means-ends rationality. Managerial capitalism generates wealth by transforming labor, the ecology, culture, emotions, and identity into calculable objects. This logic has spread throughout society and infiltrated many parts of our daily lives. The decline of the public sphere and the rise of New Public Management is a prime example. Schools, hospitals, government agencies, and even prisons are treated as utility maximizing profit centers.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading