ILPC 2027

In the ‘new capitalism’ (Boltanski and Chiapello, 2007, Sennett, 2006), the significance of entrepreneurship and innovation in the labour process is apparently growing, as firms become increasingly dependent upon differentiating their products and services from their competitors (Barney, 1986; Kanter, 1983; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Some branches of the innovation literature emphasize the need for embeddedness of the firm in broader social networks, for market access, and for transformation of technologies (Lazonick, 2006). In turn, this has prompted attention on the centrality of knowledge, knowledge work and a premium on a specific type of ‘talented’ expert labour that is both creative and unorthodox. Such employees have been variously termed ‘key enabling figures’ (eg Tidd et al, 2005), ‘technological gatekeepers’ (e.g. Whelan et al, 2010), and ‘high performing and high potential talent’ (Lewis and Heckman, 2006: 141). Authors, however, have chronicled that there is more to knowledge work than mere technical expertise. Reich (1991), for example, has coined the term ‘symbolic analysts’ to capture the idea that such workers can most appropriately be understood as brokers and manipulators of meaning in their workplace interactions. In similar vein, Alvesson (2001) has also argued that knowledge work does not just have a technical component – it also has a symbolic element whereby knowledge workers are expected to project an image of rationality, talent and wisdom as a means of dealing with the fundamentally ambiguous nature of their tasks. This image, and the work that maintains it, is, so it is suggested, aligned with that of external corporate images (Maravelias 2009) and institutional myths (Meyer and Rowan 1977). In contrast, this paper explores the politics of knowledge work internally by focusing on how entrepreneurial employees in innovative knowledge work contexts advance personal agendas through constructing images of their own ‘talent’ and ‘indispensibility’. We propose the concept of imageability (cf Lynch 1960) to capture the capacity of such employees to conduct image work that is internally focused as a key element of what authors have termed political entrepreneurship in organisations (Buchanan and Badham 2008). In effect, we argue that such entrepreneurship is undertaken through the construction and projection of images of the self, that is, through various tactics of impression management in terms of both manner and appearance (Goffmann 1959). From a case study of an apparently talented maverick employee in an IT service firm, we show how expertise and indispensibility are constructed through his image work. The nature of the image work in question is unpacked in the paper and the case also shows how he deploys imageability as a central aspect of political entrepreneurship. Ethnographic and interview data from a Scandinavian IT consultancy company, IT Consult, serve as our empirical material, most significantly data about one particularly talented maverick employee with explicit political ambitions. We will show how his attempts at political entrepreneurship through image work not only generated significant conflict in IT Consult’s management and frustration among colleagues, but also changed the authority structure and power dynamics in the firm. The paper contributes to advancing our understanding of knowledge work in three ways. First, we propose in the paper the concept of imageability to capture the capacity of such employees to conduct image work that is internally focused as a key element of political entrepreneurship. Ultimately, authority structures in knowledge intensive contexts may rest more on one’s capacity to demonstrate mastery of symbolic aspects of knowledge work than substantial technical expertise. Secondly, we unpack in a case study the various types of image work being performed that advance the ambitions of the political entrepreneur. Finally, in acknowledging and analyzing the impact of such entrepreneurship on power and authority in the firm, we argue for an extension of Crozier’s earlier work on power (Crozier 1964) in that in the specific context of knowledge work, authority structures and power are transformed by those who are skilled at imageability, through constructing situations of ambiguity and offering solutions. This contrasts with more traditional settings where power and authority are, rather, the potential outcomes of technical expertise. References Alvesson, M. (2001) ‘Knowledge Work: ambiguity, Image and Identity’, Human Relations 54(7): 863-886 Barney, J., B. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656-665. Boltanski, L. and Chiapello, È. (2007). The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso. Buchanan, D. and Badham, R. (2008) Power, Politics and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game (2nd edn.). London: Sage. Crozier, M. (1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: Chicago University Press Goffmann, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation for productivity in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lazonick, W. (2006) ‘The Innovative Firm’ in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C. and Nelson, R. R. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lewis, R. E. and Heckman, R. J. (2006) ‘Talent Management: A Critical Review’, Human Resource Management Review, 16: 139-154. Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Maravelias, C. (2009) Make your presence known! - Post-bureaucracy, HRM and the fear of being unseen. Personnel Review 38(4): 349-365. Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977) Institutional organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-63. Reich, R. B (1991) The Work of Nations - Capitalism in the 21st Century. New York: A. A. Knopf. Sennett, R. (2006) The Culture of the New Capitalism. London: Yale University Press. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change 3rd edn. Chichester: John Wiley. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30. Whelan, E., Teigland, R., Donnellan, R. and Golden, W. (2010) ‘How Internet Technologies Impact Information Flows in R&D: Reconsidering the Technological Gatekeeper’, R&D Management, 40(4),400-413.