Rethinking managerial control

Question: Describe about article of rethinking managerial control in an era of knowledge work? Answer: This article is mainly concerned with labour process theory to control managerial authority and resolve the indeterminacy of labour. Indeterminacy of labour signifies the level of cognitive power and effort a worker approaches to complete a task. This power is mainly signifies how a worker can effectively exercise his power and link theoretical expertise with the practical work. This theory brings a gap between an employees national capacity of labour and what an employee actually ends up with. This gap needs to be controlled under Labour process Theory (LPT). These practices mainly aim to maximize the surplus value and the effort of workers to achieve empowerment and commitment. The labor process theory also signifies the work of employees according to managers. Therefore there should be a thorough understanding of the organization as well to identify individual cognitive abilities (Durrenberger, 2000). The article also discusses about how to manage control within a workplace. It is essential to scrutinize all the necessary details about employees working in an organization, even if they are trusted and they maintain work standards as well. Employees should also understand how to use their legitimate knowledge and their illegitimate knowledge as well. In an organization an employee should maximize his strength by effectively selling their knowledge as compared to others and can exercise control in subject to power and resistance to control (Smith, 2006). Apart from challenging foundations of development it is also necessary to develop teamwork ability, high performance and post-Fordism to challenge the social changes of work environment. References Durrenberger, E. (2000). Power, Culture and Knowledge: Comparative Studies of Corporate Structures.Anthropology of Work Review, 20(2), pp.35-39. Smith, C. (2006). The double indeterminacy of labour power: Labour effort and labour mobility.Work, Employment Society, 20(2), pp.389-402.