The way we conceptualize organizations leads us to understand them in particular and circumscribed ways (Morgan, Reference Morgan1997). Like the proverbial blind men touching different parts of an elephant, the explicit philosophies and implicit mental models we invoke to explain organizational phenomena direct and limit our attention to a restricted subset of features that can lead to different inferences and conclusions.
In his prescient and insightful article, Mumby (Reference Mumby2019) adopts a critical perspective to analyze contemporary work environments. As Mumby notes, within a critical perspective power is the epistemic frame through which organizational dynamics are viewed and comprehended. In focusing on influence, control, and domination, a critical perspective regards phenomena such as worker empowerment as an enterprise’s means of usurping employees’ motivational states and actions, as opposed to an emancipatory approach to job design. In highlighting power dynamics, a critical perspective thus downplays or disregards other processes that can help to explain human behavior in organizations. This is not to suggest that a critical perspective is flawed, only that it is incomplete and that adding other perspectives can present organizational scholars with a more nuanced and enhanced understanding of the phenomena under their purview. In fact, critical theory asks us to continually reconsider the lenses we use to understand phenomena lest we engage in reification and become tied dogmatically to one perspective or worldview.
Positive organizational studies (e.g., Donaldson & Ko, Reference Donaldson and Ko2010) offers an alternative lens for viewing and understanding contemporary organizational phenomena. Positive organizational studies includes positive organizational behavior, which focuses on positively oriented employee strengths and capacities (Luthans, Reference Luthans2002); positive organizational scholarship, which concentrates on “especially positive outcomes, processes, and attributes of organizations and their members” (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, Reference Cameron, Dutton and Quinn2003, p. 4); and positive organizational psychology, which builds on the more general field of positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, Reference Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi2000) and emphasizes positive subjective experiences, traits, and institutions such as work organizations (Donaldson & Ko, Reference Donaldson and Ko2010). Positive organizational studies provides a perspective that accentuates the structures, processes, and mechanisms that support thriving employees in flourishing organizations.
In lieu of focusing on organizational initiatives as efforts to control and manipulate employees, positive psychology focuses on how organizational dynamics promote the health, vitality, and well-being of employees. For example, according to Kahn (Reference Kahn1990), personal engagement refers to “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Viewed through the lens of critical theory, engagement represents a form of normative control through which employees are enjoined to the dictates of capital for the purpose of generating productive labor and surplus value. From the perspective of positive psychology, engagement is a desirable state related to well-being and represents freedom in the sense that employees can be who they really are and can decide for themselves the extent to which they will personally engage or disengage in their work (Kahn, Reference Kahn1990).
Employee proactivity refers to the inclination employees have and the actions they take to modify themselves and their work environments (Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, Reference Thomas, Whitman and Viswesvaran2010). From the perspective of critical theory, employee proactivity is an example of the propagation of the enterprise self and the downloading of precarity onto employees. From the viewpoint of positive psychology, employee proactivity is a positive trait that reflects employees’ optimism and self-efficacy about making a difference through positive deviance while satisfying their needs for autonomy and competence.
Which of these perspectives is correct? We suggest that this is a specious question. A full understanding of the antecedents, nature, and dynamics of organizational phenomena can be best achieved by considering them from multiple perspectives. Consider how the lenses provided by critical theory and positive psychology might operate synergistically. It may be in reaction to the self-centeredness associated with neoliberalism that researchers have become increasingly interested in countervailing topics such as high-quality relationships (Dutton & Ragins, Reference Dutton and Ragins2007) and benevolence at work (Chancellor, Margolis, Jacobs Bao, & Lyubomirsky, Reference Chancellor, Margolis, Jacobs Bao and Lyubomirsky2018). Perhaps it is in response to the potential for self-exploitation that derives from the blurring of the boundary between work and home that increased attention is being devoted to the study of effective leisure time recovery (Sonnentag, Venz, & Casper, Reference Sonnentag, Venz and Casper2017), boundary work tactics (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, Reference Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep2009), and work–home segmentation preferences (Park, Fritz, & Jex, Reference Park, Fritz and Jex2011) that can enhance well-being. Perhaps it is partly in response to the neoliberal agenda that positive organizational studies took root at all.
It could be argued that positive psychology itself betrays an individualistic bias that reflects neoliberalism and governmentality, and indeed such criticisms have been leveled (e.g., Cabanas, Reference Cabanas2018; De La Fabián & Stecher, Reference De La Fabián and Stecher2017). However, it has also been suggested that the critical perspective may represent an over-intellectualization of economic rationalization (Fleming, Reference Fleming2014). Criticisms such as these highlight the importance of considering organizational phenomena from a variety of perspectives. No single viewpoint has a monopoly on the truth.
The traditional values and goals of managerialism reflect the efficient use of labor in service of productivity and profit. To criticize businesses for trying to be profitable is akin to criticizing quarterbacks for trying to throw touchdown passes. Such are the rules of the game. Of course, the rules can change. And perhaps they should. Mumby’s (Reference Mumby2019) observations underscore the fact that the values and goals of enterprise can not only generate manipulative efforts on the part of organizations, but also can become unspoken assumptions that unconsciously guide employees’ thinking and govern their behavior. Mumby’s analysis frames contemporary management practices as power plays aimed at exploiting employees. But despite celebrating a law-of-the-jungle philosophy, neoliberal changes in the world of work also include legitimate aspects of employee empowerment (Fleming, Reference Fleming2014). A critical theory framework points out that we want to keep our eyes open to the potential for economic paradigms to make undesirable incursions into our societies, jobs, and psyches. Concomitantly, a positive psychology lens highlights that we may be able to enjoy positive, empowering developments offered by new employment contexts.
In fact, this is exactly why an industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology perspective is important, especially in the context of Mumby’s (Reference Mumby2019) arguments, which fail to recognize research and practice devoted to the health and well-being of employees, and that I-O psychology has contributed to the well-being of American society (Katzell & Austin, Reference Katzell and Austin1992). A good example is the American Psychological Association’s Psychologically Healthy Workplace Awards (American Psychological Association, 2019), which recognize organizations that have made efforts to foster employee health and well-being while also enhancing organizational performance. Award-winning organizations have implemented practices (e.g., employee involvement, health and safety, employee growth and development, work–life balance, and employee recognition) to create a healthy and productive work environment. Mumby might argue that this is all a ploy to get more out of workers or “surplus value.” However, an organization’s emphasis on and dedication to the psychological health and well-being of employees and the use of management practices to improve employee health and well-being is something that can only be explained through a positive I-O psychology perspective.
While organizations increasingly might be exploiting employees, there are many examples that suggest that organizations are implementing practices that focus on employees’ health and well-being. Exploitation, or benefit, may be a two-way street. We might ask, in the words of Aretha Franklin’s 1985 hit song, “Who’s zoomin’ who?”
You have
Access
The way we conceptualize organizations leads us to understand them in particular and circumscribed ways (Morgan, Reference Morgan1997). Like the proverbial blind men touching different parts of an elephant, the explicit philosophies and implicit mental models we invoke to explain organizational phenomena direct and limit our attention to a restricted subset of features that can lead to different inferences and conclusions.
In his prescient and insightful article, Mumby (Reference Mumby2019) adopts a critical perspective to analyze contemporary work environments. As Mumby notes, within a critical perspective power is the epistemic frame through which organizational dynamics are viewed and comprehended. In focusing on influence, control, and domination, a critical perspective regards phenomena such as worker empowerment as an enterprise’s means of usurping employees’ motivational states and actions, as opposed to an emancipatory approach to job design. In highlighting power dynamics, a critical perspective thus downplays or disregards other processes that can help to explain human behavior in organizations. This is not to suggest that a critical perspective is flawed, only that it is incomplete and that adding other perspectives can present organizational scholars with a more nuanced and enhanced understanding of the phenomena under their purview. In fact, critical theory asks us to continually reconsider the lenses we use to understand phenomena lest we engage in reification and become tied dogmatically to one perspective or worldview.
Positive organizational studies (e.g., Donaldson & Ko, Reference Donaldson and Ko2010) offers an alternative lens for viewing and understanding contemporary organizational phenomena. Positive organizational studies includes positive organizational behavior, which focuses on positively oriented employee strengths and capacities (Luthans, Reference Luthans2002); positive organizational scholarship, which concentrates on “especially positive outcomes, processes, and attributes of organizations and their members” (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, Reference Cameron, Dutton and Quinn2003, p. 4); and positive organizational psychology, which builds on the more general field of positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, Reference Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi2000) and emphasizes positive subjective experiences, traits, and institutions such as work organizations (Donaldson & Ko, Reference Donaldson and Ko2010). Positive organizational studies provides a perspective that accentuates the structures, processes, and mechanisms that support thriving employees in flourishing organizations.
In lieu of focusing on organizational initiatives as efforts to control and manipulate employees, positive psychology focuses on how organizational dynamics promote the health, vitality, and well-being of employees. For example, according to Kahn (Reference Kahn1990), personal engagement refers to “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Viewed through the lens of critical theory, engagement represents a form of normative control through which employees are enjoined to the dictates of capital for the purpose of generating productive labor and surplus value. From the perspective of positive psychology, engagement is a desirable state related to well-being and represents freedom in the sense that employees can be who they really are and can decide for themselves the extent to which they will personally engage or disengage in their work (Kahn, Reference Kahn1990).
Employee proactivity refers to the inclination employees have and the actions they take to modify themselves and their work environments (Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, Reference Thomas, Whitman and Viswesvaran2010). From the perspective of critical theory, employee proactivity is an example of the propagation of the enterprise self and the downloading of precarity onto employees. From the viewpoint of positive psychology, employee proactivity is a positive trait that reflects employees’ optimism and self-efficacy about making a difference through positive deviance while satisfying their needs for autonomy and competence.
Which of these perspectives is correct? We suggest that this is a specious question. A full understanding of the antecedents, nature, and dynamics of organizational phenomena can be best achieved by considering them from multiple perspectives. Consider how the lenses provided by critical theory and positive psychology might operate synergistically. It may be in reaction to the self-centeredness associated with neoliberalism that researchers have become increasingly interested in countervailing topics such as high-quality relationships (Dutton & Ragins, Reference Dutton and Ragins2007) and benevolence at work (Chancellor, Margolis, Jacobs Bao, & Lyubomirsky, Reference Chancellor, Margolis, Jacobs Bao and Lyubomirsky2018). Perhaps it is in response to the potential for self-exploitation that derives from the blurring of the boundary between work and home that increased attention is being devoted to the study of effective leisure time recovery (Sonnentag, Venz, & Casper, Reference Sonnentag, Venz and Casper2017), boundary work tactics (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, Reference Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep2009), and work–home segmentation preferences (Park, Fritz, & Jex, Reference Park, Fritz and Jex2011) that can enhance well-being. Perhaps it is partly in response to the neoliberal agenda that positive organizational studies took root at all.
It could be argued that positive psychology itself betrays an individualistic bias that reflects neoliberalism and governmentality, and indeed such criticisms have been leveled (e.g., Cabanas, Reference Cabanas2018; De La Fabián & Stecher, Reference De La Fabián and Stecher2017). However, it has also been suggested that the critical perspective may represent an over-intellectualization of economic rationalization (Fleming, Reference Fleming2014). Criticisms such as these highlight the importance of considering organizational phenomena from a variety of perspectives. No single viewpoint has a monopoly on the truth.
The traditional values and goals of managerialism reflect the efficient use of labor in service of productivity and profit. To criticize businesses for trying to be profitable is akin to criticizing quarterbacks for trying to throw touchdown passes. Such are the rules of the game. Of course, the rules can change. And perhaps they should. Mumby’s (Reference Mumby2019) observations underscore the fact that the values and goals of enterprise can not only generate manipulative efforts on the part of organizations, but also can become unspoken assumptions that unconsciously guide employees’ thinking and govern their behavior. Mumby’s analysis frames contemporary management practices as power plays aimed at exploiting employees. But despite celebrating a law-of-the-jungle philosophy, neoliberal changes in the world of work also include legitimate aspects of employee empowerment (Fleming, Reference Fleming2014). A critical theory framework points out that we want to keep our eyes open to the potential for economic paradigms to make undesirable incursions into our societies, jobs, and psyches. Concomitantly, a positive psychology lens highlights that we may be able to enjoy positive, empowering developments offered by new employment contexts.
In fact, this is exactly why an industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology perspective is important, especially in the context of Mumby’s (Reference Mumby2019) arguments, which fail to recognize research and practice devoted to the health and well-being of employees, and that I-O psychology has contributed to the well-being of American society (Katzell & Austin, Reference Katzell and Austin1992). A good example is the American Psychological Association’s Psychologically Healthy Workplace Awards (American Psychological Association, 2019), which recognize organizations that have made efforts to foster employee health and well-being while also enhancing organizational performance. Award-winning organizations have implemented practices (e.g., employee involvement, health and safety, employee growth and development, work–life balance, and employee recognition) to create a healthy and productive work environment. Mumby might argue that this is all a ploy to get more out of workers or “surplus value.” However, an organization’s emphasis on and dedication to the psychological health and well-being of employees and the use of management practices to improve employee health and well-being is something that can only be explained through a positive I-O psychology perspective.
While organizations increasingly might be exploiting employees, there are many examples that suggest that organizations are implementing practices that focus on employees’ health and well-being. Exploitation, or benefit, may be a two-way street. We might ask, in the words of Aretha Franklin’s 1985 hit song, “Who’s zoomin’ who?”