SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Yönetim Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 1

The Transformation of Power in Post-Bureaucratic Organizations: A Critical Analysis Through Foucault, Hardt and Negri

Post-Bürokratik Örgütlerde İktidarın Dönüşümü: Foucault, Hardt ve Negri Üzerinden Eleştirel Bir İnceleme

Emre Seyrek(AĞRI İBRAHİM ÇEÇEN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-6561-8739
Pages
60–79
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study contributes to management and organization theory by conceptualizing post-bureaucratic power as an organizational tension in which control and collective autonomy are simultaneously produced.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the transformation of power and control relations in post-bureaucratic organizations by establishing a theoretical connection between Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s concepts of Empire, biopolitical production, the Multitude and the Common, and Michel Foucault’s analyses of disciplinary power and biopolitics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As hierarchical authority becomes less visible, control is increasingly embedded in algorithms, performance metrics, team norms, and organizational culture, while employees become active participants in regulating their own conduct and performance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study contributes to management and organization theory by conceptualizing post-bureaucratic power as an organizational tension in which control and collective autonomy are simultaneously produced.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Post-Bürokrasi · Örgütsel İktidar · Biyopolitik Üretim

Abstract

This study examines the transformation of power and control relations in post-bureaucratic organizations by establishing a theoretical connection between Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s concepts of Empire, biopolitical production, the Multitude and the Common, and Michel Foucault’s analyses of disciplinary power and biopolitics. Based on a theoretical and critical literature review, the study comparatively evaluates the literature on post-bureaucratic organization, immaterial labor, normative control, self-management, algorithmic management, and alternative forms of organization. Its central argument is that post-bureaucratic transformation does not eliminate organizational power, rather, it restructures power through decentralization, internalization, and biopolitical expansion. As hierarchical authority becomes less visible, control is increasingly embedded in algorithms, performance metrics, team norms, and organizational culture, while employees become active participants in regulating their own conduct and performance. At the same time, production based on knowledge, creativity, communication, and cooperation increases management’s dependence on employees’ collective capacities, creating possibilities for micro-resistance, commons-based production, and alternative forms of organizing. Algorithmic management at Uber, normative control, open-source production, and platform cooperativism are used as illustrative cases of the theoretical argument. The study contributes to management and organization theory by conceptualizing post-bureaucratic power as an organizational tension in which control and collective autonomy are simultaneously produced.

Özet

Bu çalışma, post-bürokratik örgütlerde iktidar ve denetim ilişkilerinin nasıl dönüştüğünü Michael Hardt ve Antonio Negri’nin İmparatorluk, biyopolitik üretim, Çokluk ve Ortaklık kavramları ile Michel Foucault’nun disipliner iktidar ve biyopolitika yaklaşımı arasında kurulan teorik bağlantı üzerinden incelemektedir. Kuramsal ve eleştirel literatür incelemesine dayanan çalışmada post-bürokratik örgütlenme, maddi olmayan emek, normatif kontrol, öz-yönetim, algoritmik yönetim ve alternatif örgütlenme literatürü karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışmanın temel argümanı, post-bürokratik dönüşümün iktidarı ortadan kaldırmadığı, aksine iktidarı merkezsizleşme, içselleştirme ve biyopolitik genişleme mekanizmaları aracılığıyla yeniden yapılandırdığıdır. Hiyerarşik otoritenin görece zayıflamasıyla denetim algoritmalara, performans ölçütlerine, takım normlarına ve örgütsel kültüre dağılmakta, çalışanlar kendi davranışlarını ve performanslarını düzenleyen aktörlere dönüşmektedir. Bununla birlikte bilgi, yaratıcılık, iletişim ve iş birliğine dayalı üretim, yönetimin çalışanların kolektif kapasitesine bağımlılığını artırarak mikro-direniş, müşterek üretim ve alternatif örgütlenme olanakları yaratmaktadır. Uber’de algoritmik yönetim, Kunda’nın normatif kontrol çözümlemesi, açık kaynak üretim modelleri ve platform kooperatifçiliği, teorik argümanın örgütsel karşılıklarını açıklayan örnekler olarak ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma, post-bürokratik iktidarı denetim ile kolektif özerkliğin eş zamanlı üretildiği bir örgütsel gerilim olarak kavramsallaştırarak yönetim ve organizasyon literatürüne kuramsal katkı sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Seyrek, E. (2026). The Transformation of Power in Post-Bureaucratic Organizations: A Critical Analysis Through Foucault, Hardt and Negri. Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Yönetim Dergisi, Sayı: 1, 60–79. https://doi.org/10.35375/sayod.2006382

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (83)

  1. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2020). The problematizing review: A counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s argument for integrative reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1290–1304.
  2. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1992). On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 432–464.
  3. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619-644. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00305
  4. Aneesh, A. (2009). Global labor: Algocratic modes of organization. Sociological Theory, 27(4), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01352.x
  5. Balibar, É. (1998). Spinoza and politics. Verso.
  6. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393374
  7. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.
  8. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, È. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism (G. Elliott, Trans.). Verso.
  9. Boyle, J. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. Yale University Press.
  10. Böhm, S., Dinerstein, A. C., & Spicer, A. (2010). (Im)possibilities of Autonomy: Social Movements in and beyond Capital, the State and Development. Social Movement Studies, 9(1), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742830903442485
  11. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press.
  12. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
  13. Cheney, G. (1999). Values at work: Employee participation meets market pressure at Mondragón. Cornell University Press.
  14. Clegg, S. R. (1989). Frameworks of power. SAGE Publications.
  15. Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006). Power and organizations. Sage Publications.
  16. Collinson, D. L. (2003). Identities and insecurities: Selves at work. Organization, 10(3), 527–547.
  17. Contu, A. (2008). Decaf resistance: On misbehavior, cynicism, and desire in liberal workplaces. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 364-379.
  18. Crary, J. (2013). 24/7: Late capitalism and the ends of sleep. Verso Books.
  19. Daft, R. L. (2021). Organization theory and design (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  20. Deetz, S. (1998). Discursive formations, strategized subordination and self-surveillance. In A. McKinlay & K. Starkey (Eds.), Foucault, management and organization theory: From panopticon to technologies of self (pp. 151–172). SAGE Publications.
  21. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3-7.
  22. Dowling, E. (2007). Producing the dining experience: Measure, subjectivity and the affective worker. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 7(1), 117–132.
  23. Fleming, P. (2014). Resisting work: The corporatization of life and its discontents. Temple University Press.
  24. Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2007). Contesting the corporation: Struggle, power and resistance in organizations. Cambridge University Press.
  25. Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. (2011). ‘Being yourself’ in the electronic sweatshop: New forms of normative control. Human Relations, 64(2), 177-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710375481
  26. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books.
  27. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
  28. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979 (G. Burchell, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan.
  29. Galloway, A. R. (2004). Protocol: How control exists after decentralization. MIT Press.
  30. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
  31. Gill, R., & Pratt, A. (2008). In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(7-8), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276408097794
  32. Gregg, M. (2011). Work's intimacy. Polity Press.
  33. Han, B. C. (2015). The burnout society. Stanford University Press.
  34. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Harvard University Press.
  35. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2004). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of Empire. Penguin Press.
  36. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Harvard University Press.
  37. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2017). Assembly. Oxford University Press.
  38. Harvey, D. (2004). The ‘new’ imperialism: Accumulation by dispossession. Socialist Register, 40, 63–87.
  39. Heckscher, C., & Donnellon, A. (Eds.). (1994). The post-bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change. SAGE Publications.
  40. Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling (3rd ed.). University of California Press.
  41. Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at work. Cambridge University Press.
  42. Huws, U. (2014). Labor in the global digital economy: The cybertariat comes of age. Monthly Review Press.
  43. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
  44. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366-410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
  45. Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2014). Network society and future scenarios for a collaborative economy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137406897
  46. Kunda, G. (2006). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation (Rev. ed.). Temple University Press.
  47. Lazzarato, M. (1996). Immaterial labor. In P. Virno & M. Hardt (Eds.), Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics (pp. 133-147). University of Minnesota Press.
  48. Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015). Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1603–1612). Association for Computing Machinery.
  49. Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 35-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.002
  50. Marazzi, C. (2011). Capital and affects: The politics of the language economy (F. Mecchia, Trans.). Semiotext(e).
  51. Marx, K. (1990). Capital: A critique of political economy (B. Fowkes, Trans., Vol. 1). Penguin Books.
  52. Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337-1357.
  53. McKinlay, A., & Starkey, K. (Eds.). (1998). Foucault, management and organization theory: From panopticon to technologies of self. SAGE Publications.
  54. Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  55. Moulier Boutang, Y. (2011). Cognitive capitalism (E. Emery, Trans.). Polity Press.
  56. Mumby, D. K. (2005). Theorizing resistance in organization studies: A dialectical approach. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 19-44.
  57. Mumby, D. K., Thomas, R., Martí, I., & Seidl, D. (2017). Resistance redux. Organization Studies, 38(9), 1157–1183.
  58. Negri, A. (1991). The savage anomaly: The power of Spinoza’s metaphysics and politics (M. Hardt, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
  59. O'Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1079-1106.
  60. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
  61. Parker, M., Cheney, G., Fournier, V., & Land, C. (Eds.). (2014). The Routledge companion to alternative organization. Routledge.
  62. Peters, T. (1992). Liberation management: Necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties. Alfred A. Knopf.
  63. Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 351-376.
  64. Reedy, P., King, D., & Coupland, C. (2016). Organizing for individuation: Alternative organizing, politics and new identities. Organization Studies, 37(11), 1553–1573.
  65. Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self (2nd ed.). Free Association Books.
  66. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784.
  67. Rothschild, J., & Whitt, J. A. (1986). The cooperative workplace: Potentials and dilemmas of organizational democracy and participation. Cambridge University Press.
  68. Scholz, T. (2016). Uberworked and underpaid: How workers are disrupting the digital economy. Polity Press.
  69. Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press.
  70. Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. W. W. Norton & Company.
  71. Sewell, G. (1998). The discipline of teams: Toward a theory of negative surveillance in the workplace. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 397-428. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393857
  72. Sewell, G. (2005). Nice work? Rethinking managerial control in an era of knowledge work. Organization, 12(5), 685-704.
  73. Sewell, G., & Barker, J. R. (2006). Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveillance. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 934-961. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527466
  74. Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20-24.
  75. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
  76. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.
  77. Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2005). Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New public management and managerial identities in the UK public services. Organization Studies, 26(5), 683–706.
  78. Townley, B. (1993). Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 518–545.
  79. Vercellone, C. (2007). From formal subsumption to general intellect: Elements for a Marxist reading of the thesis of cognitive capitalism. Historical Materialism, 15(1), 13-36.
  80. Virno, P. (1996). The ambivalence of disenchantment. In P. Virno & M. Hardt (Eds.), Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics (pp. 13–36). University of Minnesota Press.
  81. Virno, P. (2004). A grammar of the multitude: For an analysis of contemporary forms of life (I. Bertoletti, J. Cascaito, & A. Casson, Trans.). Semiotext(e).
  82. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.
  83. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.