Exiting rebellion’s vicious circle

  • David Courpasson
  • Jean-Claude Thoenig


What are companies’ strengths and weaknesses in dealing with rebellion? As the twenty-first century gets under way, self-proclaimed performance-based management possesses three traits: arrogant claims to leadership; a refusal to allow open discussion allied to the professed infallibility of an elite with broad managerial impunity; and disdain for those lower down the scale. This is all the more surprising as it is generally thought that the page had long since been turned on the era of bureaucracy. Companies that are managed from a power base — those displaying these three traits — are fertile ground for rebellion.


Senior Management Power Structure Middle Manager Modern Management Executive Board 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. Coch and J. R. P. French, Jr., Overcoming resistance to change, Human relations, 1: 512–32 1947–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Weber, Economy and society, Berkeley, Calif., University of California Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Mintzberg, The structuring of organization: A synthesis of the research, New York, Prentice Hall, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Heckscher and A. Donnellon (eds), The post-bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change, Newbury Park, Calif., Sage, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Reihlen, The logics of heterarchies: Making organizations competitive for knowledge-based competition, University of Cologne, Seminar für Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftlehre, Working paper no. 91, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. A. Burgelman, Strategy is destiny. How strategy-making shapes a company’s future, New York, Simon & Schuster, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. W. Lerner and J. Wanat, Fuzziness and bureaucracy, Public administration review, 43 (6): 500–9, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Weick, Sensemaking in organisations, London, Sage, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Lindblom, The science of muddling through, Public administration review, 19: 79–88, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Pollard, The genesis of modern management. A study of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Ackroyd and P. Thompson, Organizational misbehaviours, London, Sage, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Fleming and A. Spicer, Contesting the corporation: Struggle, power and resistance in organizations, Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© David Courpasson & Jean-Claude Thoenig 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Courpasson
    • 1
  • Jean-Claude Thoenig
    • 2
  1. 1.EMLYON Business SchoolFrance
  2. 2.University Paris-Dauphine and CNRS, INSEADFrance

Personalised recommendations