Destructive Management Leadership: a review essay

Destructive Leadership and Management Hypocrisy: Advances in Theory and Practice, by Selin Metin Camgöz & Özge Tayfur Ekmekci

ISBN: 9781800431812 Bingley, Emerald Publishing Limited, 320 pp., €87.90 £ 70.- (hbk.), 2021

Reviewed by Thomas Klikauer

Some might argue that leadership is – by definition –destructive (Kropotkin, 1902; Piven & Clowad, 1971; Parker et al., 2020). And there is plenty of evidence for that in our world, from Russia’s Putin to America’s Donald Trump, from India’s Modi to Brazil’s Bolsonaro, from Hungary’s Orban to Italy’s Meloni – the list goes on. And this does not even include super-destructive leaders like Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Pinochet. Yet, in management studies things are different – here managerial leadership is great. The field of management studies – while pretending to be academic – is mostly about legitimising the domination of management over workers, local communities, and the environment (Klikauer & Simms, 2021a). And for that, management studies depends on ideology, as virtually all ideologies provide highly valuable functions for a ruling elite.

One can safely argue that management studies not only operates with ‘fraud and deception’ (Tourish, 2020) –perhaps ever since Taylor’s so-called ‘Scientific Management’ (Lepore 2009) – but it also depends on ideology to legitimise management as an institution and it does this for at least three reasons: 1) to camouflage contradiction such as that between workers and managers or those that might be called corporate apparatchiks (Klikauer & Simms, 2021b); 2) to justify domination; and 3) to eliminate – as much as possible – the emancipation of workers from the domineering structures of, for example, management. For that the subject of management studies has invented plenty of ideological justifications for one of management’s favourite institutions: managerial leadership. As a consequence, there is an ideology of managerial leadership, or what Bolchover (2005) calls the great corporate leader.

Yet, and this happens only on extremely rare occasions, some academics within the body of management studies are game enough to issue some mild critique of managerial leadership. In general, such a critique – when it comes at all – comes from those on the fringes of management studies and not from established business school professors.

It also does not come from those who publish in what the ideologues of management studies call reputable, top, and A-star journals (Parker, 2002). In other words, you either publish in career-advancing top management studies journals such as the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Management, Organization Science, Strategic Management Journal, etc. (Nyberg & Wright, 2022:717), or you are confined to the periphery of management studies.

Cunningly, some of the ideological apostles of management studies have invented their very own version of critique. This critique of management studies is system stabilising and not system challenging. This stabilising critique is often framed using the terminology of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory (Klikauer, 2011). Writers in management studies and the related field of organisation studies call their system-conforming invention ‘critical management studies’, or CMS (Klikauer, 2015a). CMS pretends to be critical while supporting management studies.

Perhaps a good way to understand the difference between both is to return to none other than the Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (February 1848) in which both write, ‘Socialism was, on the continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite’ (Marx & Engels, 1848). This clarifies CMS. Today, the critique of CMS is respectable – it is welcomed in mainstream management studies journals, in management conferences, and even more so in organisation studies conferences. Real critique is the very opposite (Horkheimer, 1937). Real critique is not found in the mainstream journals of management studies or organisation studies.

This publication edited by Selin Metin Camgöz & Özge Tayfur Ekmekci falls into the category of a system-stabilising critique. The collection has three parts: (i) definitional issues and conceptual clarifications; (ii) how can anyone be like that? – systematising; and (iii) emerging issues in destructive leadership: a special concern about measures and remedies of how to deal with it. The book is divided into seventeen individual chapters written by thirty authors. Their collection delivers, as the editors say in the introduction, a critique of the idea of leadership in management studies. They also note that their book is on the dark and harmful side of leadership, on destructive leadership, as well as on – what might be called another recent fashion in management studies –‘pseudotransformational leadership’ (preface: xxvii; Tourish, 2013).

Since management studies is deeply rooted in the ideology of business ethics, its concept of leadership immediately incurs the problem of ethical – or rather unethical –leadership, the infamous corporate psychopath (Klikauer, 2018), abusive supervisors and – almost self-evidently – ‘the impact of destructive leadership on followers, mental health including experiences of anxiety, depression, frustration, hostility, fatigue, loss of concentration, emotional exhaustion, affectivity, stress, and burnout’ (preface: xxviii).

Almost incontestably, managerial leadership includes narcissism and a personalised – or better, managerialised –need for power, the ruthless corporate mini-dictator, and the unscrupulous corporate apparatchik. Adopted from its original Stalinist definition and adjusted to management, corporate apparatchiks can be seen as managers who are dedicated to the managerial apparatus. Stabilising the apparatus and one’s position in the apparatus is paramount even when this means, for example, supporting the questionable, unethical, immoral, and even white-collar-crime-committing CEO (Gottschalk, 2017). All this rather often comes with or is even based on ‘toxic leader–follower relationships’ (p. 6). Such relationships aren’t just toxic, they are also outright anti-democratic as managerial leaders are never elected. Yet, the word ‘democracy’ remains – perhaps together with trade unions – a term that management writers avoid like the plague. In other words, the world of management is a democracy exclusion zone.

As one of the authors of the collection – Christian Thoroughgood – claims, ‘destructive leadership reflects a special case of more general leadership situations’ (p. 6). This might insinuate that destructive leadership is only a special kind of leadership while normal management leadership isn’t problematic, even though the normal managerial leadership is based on a top-down leader-vs.-follower structure that is not just anti-democratic but, in many cases, carries connotations of Hegel’s master-and-slave theorem (Klikauer, 2016). All of these versions of leadership are also found, as the author says, in, political dictatorships (e.g., Stalin’s Russia, Pol Pot’s Cambodia), religious cults (e.g., The People’s Temple, Branch Davidians), and for-profit corporations (e.g., Enron, WorldCom) (p. 10). There is a rather surprising absence of four of the world’s most evil political dictatorships ever to exist: Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s fascist Italy, Franco’s fascist Spain, and Pinochet’s equally fascist Chile.

Secondly, the reference to political leadership might incur the rhetorical manipulation of what one might call: see, managerial leadership is no different to what goes on in the real world.

Meanwhile, inside business organisations, leadership gives way to ‘abusive supervision and petty tyranny’ (p. 12), including toxic acts like ‘yelling related to missing deadlines’ (p. 13). Yet, simultaneously, the absence of an even slightly democratic leader has to be somehow justified if ideological management studies is worth its ideological currency. Consequently, the author also states that ‘unqualified acceptance of democratic [leaders] is largely a leap of faith’ (p. 13). In other words, a democratic leadership isn’t something to be aspired to, but it may simply be ‘accepted’. Worse, support for democratic leadership is ‘unqualified’. And to finish off any unwarranted ideas about democracy, it is ‘a leap of faith’. In other words, not for management. Case closed.

Yet, the ideological justification of leadership is getting even worse in books on management studies debating leadership when the author notes, ‘the unpleasant reality that autocratic leaders are sometimes necessary for corporate turnarounds requiring bold, time-sensitive decisions’ (p. 14). And to make it even worse, about the Italian fascist dictator and mass killer Mussolini, the author writes, ‘early in the regime, Italians benefitted from expanded public transportation, public works development, and job opportunities, providing national pride and respite from the economic and political crises of the time’ (p. 14). Isn’t fascism wonderful (sic)? (Petersen, 1982; Levi, 1959 & 1988). The above used sic! – as in sic erat scriptum –almost makes one sick.

While management studies like to present Italian fascism in a positive light, management studies’ own ‘research has overwhelmingly focused on the positive side of leadership’ (p. 21) – after all, the raison d’être of the ideology of management studies is twofold: to make management more efficient and to provide an ideology that legitimises management, managerial leadership, and even abusive managerial leadership. Yet, management studies also had to cope with the rather obvious issues of destructive leadership. This, too, had to be ideologically legitimised. For that, management studies has invented a rather useful double-theme, claiming there are ‘two prominent aspects of negative leadership, namely, abusive supervision and laissez-faire leadership’ (p. 22).

On the one hand, management studies acknowledges toxic leadership – now framed as just being ‘negative’ and reduced to ‘abusive supervision’ while, on the other hand, management studies also issues a quick warning shot against ‘laissez-faire leadership’, i.e. a social structure with minimal or no leadership. The key ideological goal in this is rather rhetorical. It is to close Hirschman’s ‘exit option’ (1970), i.e. no leadership. In that way readers are convinced to believe that one needs leadership – which is, at least in terms of human evolution – not quite true (Hare & Woods, 2020; Sahlins, 1974) and perhaps not even when it comes to management and organisations (Parker, 2014). Whether it is true or not is not even the point: the point is ideological support for management and managerial leadership.

When seeking to reduce the pathologies of managerial leadership to not much more than abusive supervision, the ideologues of management studies like to outline that ‘abusive supervision is defined as subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours, excluding physical contact’ (p. 22). Again, as presented by the ideologues seeking to legitimise managerial leadership, abusive supervision only seems to exist in the ‘perceptions’ of those the ideologues of management studies call ‘subordinates’ – a derogatory term. Linguistically, much of this cements one of management studies’ core beliefs that, in terms of history, has existed ever since Fayol (1916). It is the unwavering conviction that management is based on Fayol’s chain of command. This hierarchy-sustain idea is a deeply and more importantly unchangeable myth that hierarchical arrangement can never be overcome (Diefenbach, 2013). Interestingly, management studies also frames toxic leadership as hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours. This comes with an even more interesting attachment: excluding physical contact. Perhaps the ideological purpose of this is to eliminate an unsavoury truth about managers, foremen, overseers, supervisors, etc., namely that throughout the history of management, managers have always used – and in many cases still use – what current management studies belittles as ‘physical contact’, i.e., sticks, batons, chains, whips, and so on (Thompson, 1963 & 1967).

In a further step to create even more ideological myths, management writers and self-appointed leadership experts also claim that ‘leadership behaviour can be either pro or against the organisation or pro or against the employee, leading to four types of leaders:

1. constructive (pro-pro),

2. derailed (against-against),

3. tyrannical (pro-organisation, against employees), or

4. supportive-disloyal (against organisation, proemployees)’ (p. 26).

In this sort of management leadership is framed as either being for workers and, almost by definition, against business or it is pro-business and against workers. This ideological dichotomy forces managers into a twofold choice in which they – almost automatically – select the pro-business option. Important is that management studies issues two more, i.e. additional, options for managers. Whether management studies offers two or four options is largely irrelevant for the overall ideological goals of the ideologues of management studies, which is to make the option ‘no leadership’ vanish into thin air.

The ideological legitimation of managerial leadership continues with ‘leadership is often defined as goal-oriented influence … which includes two basic aspects which naturally form the basis of almost all leadership concepts, that is, intention (goal) and influence behaviour (means)’ (p. 26). Apart from the fact that neither leadership nor managerial leadership is ‘natural’ but a human invention, managerial leadership is – as the vast majority of management studies articles and books testify – defined in highly positive terms. Beyond that the ideologues of management studies want us to believe that managerial leadership is either directed towards goals that are always defined by managers and are always managerial goals or they are directed toward ‘influencing’ behaviour. The euphemism ‘influencing behaviour’ uses the term ‘influencing’ to avoid the word ‘manipulation’ (Filmsforaction, 2010), while ‘behaviour’ means the behaviour of subordinates – to use one of management studies’ favourite terminologies.

To further divert attention away from the toxic pathology of managerial leadership, the political philosophy of Machiavelli is – almost regularly – wheeled out when noting ‘the Machiavellians were shown to resort to the soft tactics of charm, appearance, joking or kidding, exchange of a favour, promise of reward, ingratiation, alliances and offering compliments and the hard tactics of threat of appeal, threat of punishment and manipulation of the person or situation’ (p. 39). In other words, the pathology of managerial leadership is presented as a side issue as toxic managerial leadership is a case of a few Machiavellians and not inherent to the top-down structure of managerial leadership. The ideology behind this is to present managerial leadership as perfectly legitimate, cementing the domination of managers over workers. This may well be the overarching ideological goal of management studies, managerial leadership, and even books on the dark side of managerial leadership.

Further and since management is – almost by definition and, historically, at least in its two-hundred-plus-year-old history – an unethical institution, management studies has come up with at least two ideologies to camouflage its own pathology. These are the well-known ideas of business ethics and the recently added corporate social responsibility. Being aware that managerial leadership – perhaps even by definition – can easily lead to immoral management behaviour, management studies, when seeking to ideologically legitimise managerial leadership, likes to point out that, ‘unethical leadership seems to be characterized primarily by actively negative traits and behaviours such as egoism, dishonesty and corruption, inhumane and unfair treatment, manipulation and destructive behaviour, and a short-term perspective on success’ (p. 53). The ideology behind this is to personalise managerial leadership as well as business ethics and corporate social responsibility.

In this, real moral philosophy and ethics (Klikauer, 2012) aren’t applied to managerial leadership, which could have potentially rather devastating outcomes for management studies and managerial leadership. Instead, the entire 2,500 years of moral philosophy is reduced to a question of ‘negative traits and behaviours’. This fits rather neatly with yet another ideology of management studies: individualism. In the wake of this, rafts of corporate scandals and outright criminality by corporate apparatchiks and CEOs, acts that have accompanied management, companies, and corporations ever since their invention, are reduced to individual ‘egoism, dishonesty and corruption, inhumane and unfair treatment’. The structural pathologies of companies and corporations as well as capitalism as such – in terms of dehumanisation, corporate criminality, and global environmental vandalism –is simply a question of individual traits. With that, it basically disappears. Ideology wins, managerial leadership and, even more importantly, toxic managerial leadership disappear.

To further the individualisation of the structural pathologies of managerial leadership, management studies also like to focus on the corporate psychopath. It is an ideological tool that diverts attention towards the individual ‘bad apple’ – the psychopath. It avoids focusing on the barrel, i.e. the structural pathology of managerial leadership. This is simply individualised away as the focus moves from politicaleconomy and sociology and towards psychology – a subject that focuses on the individual rather than the overall structure of corporate capitalism. As a consequence, the corporate psychopath remains a favourite of management studies when the ideologues of management studies note, for example, that psychopaths ‘are people with no scruples, empathy or affective regard for others, and this enables them to take an entirely selfinterested approach to life ... corporate psychopaths are the approximately 1.2% of employees …[who] seem to be good at getting to the top of organisations, and so between 4% and 10% of top managers … are highly psychopathic ... [with their number at] Wall Street [being] close to 10 per cent’ (p. 69). In other words, when it comes to corporate psychopaths, do not look down to workers but up to managers versed in what the authors call ‘kiss-up and kick down’ (p. 70). Tellingly, the ideologues of management studies mention that they ‘seem to be good at getting to the top of organisations’. Several aspects are interesting in this line of argumentation: firstly, they ‘seem’ to be good. In other words, they only seem that way; secondly, the ideologues of management studies mention ‘to be good at getting’ which means virtually all of this depends on them – the corporate psychopath – and not on the pathological setup of management that almost automatically promotes the corporate psychopath; finally, all this applies to ‘organisations’, i.e. this is not just a feature of a corporate business organisation, it is a feature of all organisations and thereby it becomes common, normal, and almost natural.

The ideological premise is: see, managerial organisations and managers are just ordinary people – just like everyone else. The structural pathology of the managerial setup is ideologically legitimised.

Of course, corporate psychopaths also love the very German idea of ‘Schadenfreude [which] is the taking of pleasure from seeing others fail or fall or experience misfortune’ (p. 75). As true as this may be, it is yet another ideology – that of individual Schadenfreude, i.e., a feeling of an individual. This is useful when diverting attention away from the fact that virtually all of management, including managerial leadership, can – and in many cases actually does – generate toxic and pathological leadership. Ideologically, this unwarranted problem needs to be individualised to camouflage the pathological and very structural imperatives of managerial leadership.

A similar ideological issue that can be individualised is ‘leader hypocrisy [which] mainly refers to the misalignment between words and deeds of a leader’ (p. 129), often using double standards, dishonesty, and deception. This goes to one of the most important pieces of ideological assistance to managers: always remember the lies you told yesterday (Klikauer, 2014:2). Management studies sees hypocrisy as a ‘misalignment [which] occurs when a person says one thing but does another thing’ (p. 132) – another perfect ideology for individualisation of a structural pathology: managerial leadership.

Similarly, even the issue of ‘downward mobbing, which is the intentional and repeated inflictions of physical or psychological harm by superiors on subordinates within an organisation’ (p. 144) can become an ideological tool useful to management studies. While there hardly is upward mobbing – from worker to managers – neither the aforementioned pathologies, hypocrisy nor mobbing ever leads writers of management studies to question managerial leadership as such. Perhaps (i) the overall master ideology of individualism works its magic even with writers of management studies. Perhaps (ii), the writers of management books on managerial leadership are the true apostles of the ideology of Managerialism (Klikauer, 2015b). And to cement such ideologies even further, management studies likes to state the obvious, ‘downward mobbing is humiliating and emotionally abusive’ (p. 146).

One of the almost unavoidable case studies on the pathology of managerial leadership comes from the Amazon corporation (Klikauer & Campbell, 2020). The case of Amazon has become so widely known that not even the apostles of managerial leadership can avoid it. On this issue, the authors like to quote Amazon’s very own boss, Jeff Bezos, who once asked his workers, ‘Are you lazy or incompetent? … I’m sorry, did I take my stupid pills today? … If I hear that idea again, I’m gonna have to kill myself’ (p. 171). It follows the managerial brutality of managerial leadership when presenting workers as

‘weaklings [that deserve to be] weeded out [while] the true “Amazonians” survive’ (p. 171) in a corporate management style that is called ‘purposeful Darwinism’ (p. 171) by the ideologues of management studies. In reality, this is nothing but social Darwinism, a semi-fascistic ideology (Hawkins & Hawkins, 1997).

In a second step, the writers of management studies immediately divert attention away from managerial leadership by arguing that ‘they strive and fiercely compete to be deemed an Amazonian’ (p. 171), as if ‘they’ (workers) want all of this rather than being pressed into this by managerial leadership. Yet this also operates as a rhetorical-ideological tool for what comes next, namely that all this is ‘a high-tech version of the dehumanised factory floor’ (p. 171). What one can see over and over again in such management books, and particularly in those deemed to be critical, is that the real issue at hand – managerial leadership – vanishes as managerial leadership becomes merely ‘a high-tech version’ of the ‘factory floor’. It is no longer even shop-floor management but a ‘high-tech version’, i.e. an issue of technology and not of the structural pathologies of managerial leadership. In other words, even the slightest hint to management is rhetorically avoided by the apostles of the ideology of managerial leadership and the justifiers of the structural pathology of managerial leadership.

Yet, the myth-making continues with ‘their 29 minutes and 59 seconds lunch break in overcrowded bathrooms’ (p. 171). Interestingly, it is ‘their’ lunch break, not the one ordered by Amazon’s Social Darwinistic managers. And, of course, it is the ‘overcrowded bathroom’ – as if it was the fault of the workers who overcrowded such bathrooms so kindly provided by Amazon. Meanwhile, the real inhumanity of such despotic managerial leadership vanishes: the widely published fact of being forced to urinate into a Coke bottle simply isn’t mentioned in a book that seeks to whitewash managerial leadership (Klikauer & Campbell, 2020). Yet, worse is to come.

Pretty much the only organisation that could eliminate inhumane work regimes like those found at Amazon is also eliminated by the writers of management studies books when saying, ‘the unions are obstacles that would impede its ability to improve customer service’ (p. 172). All this deeply ideological talk is finished by hinting Amazon is pushing local brick-and-mortar businesses out of the market. Well, deeply inhumane managerial leadership is justified by alluding to the fact that, after all, Amazon is extremely successful when pushing other businesses out of the market.

For corporate apparatchiks at companies and corporations and even more for the apostles of the ideology of managerial leadership working in consultancy firms, business schools, pro-business media, and business-financed think tanks, ideologies legitimising competition and the free market override even humane as well as inhumane consideration such as ‘irresponsibility, victimisation, and callous communication

… harassing and picking on [people as well as when workers say that a manager] put me down in front of other people … ridiculed me’ (p. 190). This also includes ‘the tendency to lord one’s power over others [and] my boss blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment’ (p. 191). All are near perfect examples of the ideology of individualism.

These are all managerial behaviours that also fit the aforementioned ‘Machiavellianism factors [of] interpersonal manipulation, cynical view, spitefulness, amorality and greed’ (p. 204). Simultaneously, these individualistic traces fit very neatly in the overall ideology of the book, namely that destructive managerial leadership isn’t systemic but an issue of a few individual managers. This ideological theme is continued with the claim that ‘destructive leadership consists of four distinct dimensions: (1) corruption, (2) excoriation of followers, (3) abuse of followers and (4) the loss of professional morality’ to which ‘petty tyranny’ might be added (p. 233).

On the extremely rare occasion when the collection mentions empirical data, the authors of a chapter on Turkey entitled, ‘Gender and Destructive Leadership: An Examination of Follower Perceptions’ (p. 239) found that ‘74.4% of all participants deemed male managers’ supervision to be abusive, compared to 66.2% who viewed female leaders in the same way’ (p. 244). This is a finding that is still useful for the overall ideology as it diverts attention away from the structural power asymmetries between managers and workers and moves them towards the male-female problem. We already know that men are abusive towards women. Yet, the structural power asymmetry of companies and corporations, as many feminists have correctly pointed out, makes it only worse when an abusive man is furnished with the organisational power of being a manager at the same time.

In the end and as an overall conclusion, the collection of chapters on the dark side of managerial leadership achieves four basic things. Firstly, it highlights the problems of managerial leadership that are presented from many different angles. Yet, several general themes of managerial leadership can be extracted. Secondly, the collection presents an up-todate overview of the current research, themes, and concepts of destructive managerial leadership. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, it presents destructive managerial leadership not as a structural issue of management, corporations, and capitalism but, instead, as an individual issue of some misguided managers – a few bad apples in an otherwise good barrel. Finally, at no point is there any reflection of the overall issue of managerial leadership. The existence –and this is despite their investigation into the destructive managerial leadership and what the authors have uncovered – of managerial leadership is at no point presented as a deeply flawed structural issue of management nor is it ever questioned. One of the truly ideologically brilliant moves that stabilises management studies is that this collection can claim to think outside the box, i.e., highlighting the negative of managerial leadership while simultaneously providing a system-stabilising corrective to managerial leadership.

In other words, this collection of the dark side of managerial leadership assists the apostles of the ideology of Managerialism (Klikauer, 2023) in fine-tuning managerial leadership. In the end, even semi-critical academics in the field of management studies appear to be trapped in their own ideology that stabilises domination. In the words of German philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno (1944), immovably, they insist on the very ideology that enslaves them.

Thomas Klikauer teaches MBAs at the Sydney Graduate School of Management, Western Sydney University. Contact: T.Klikauer@westernsydney.edu.au

References

Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. (1944). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception (https://www.marxists.org/reference/ archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm, accessed: 30th September 2022).

Bolchover, D. (2005). The Living Dead – Switched off Zoned Out, The Shocking Truth about Office Life, Chichester: Capstone Press.

Diefenbach, T. (2013). Hierarchy and Organization, London: Routledge.

Fayol, H. (1916). Managerialism Industrielle et Generale (Industrial and General Managerialism), London: Sir I. Pitman & Sons, ltd. (1930). Filmsforaction, (2010). Human Resources Social Engineering In The 20th Century. Retrieved from https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/ human-resources-social-engineering-in-the-20th-century-2010/.

Gottschalk, P. (2017). CEOs and White-Collar Crime, London: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Hare, B. & Woods, V. (2020). Survival of the friendliest: understanding our origins and rediscovering our common humanity, New York: Random House.

Hawkins, M. & Hawkins, M. (1997). Social Darwinism in European and American thought, 1860-1945: Nature as model and nature as threat, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Horkheimer, M. (1937). Traditional and Critical Theory, in: Horkheimer, M. Critical Theory – Selected Essays, translated by O’Connell, M. J. et al., 1972, New York: Herder.

Klikauer, T. (2011). Management and Emancipation – Two Opposing Ideas, International Journal of Social Economics, 38(6), 573-580.

Klikauer, T. (2012). Seven Management Moralities, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Klikauer, T. (2014). Seven Moralities of HRM, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Klikauer, T. (2015a). Critical Management Studies and Critical Theory, Capital & Class, 39(2), 197-220.

Klikauer, T. (2015b). What is managerialism? Critical Sociology, 41(78), 1103-1119.

Klikauer, T. (2016). Negative recognition – Master and slave in the workplace, Thesis Eleven, 132(1), 39-49.

Klikauer, T. (2018). Hannibal Lector goes to work: The Psychopath Factory – How Capitalism Organises Empathy, Organization, 25(3), 448-451.

Klikauer, T. (2023). The Language of Managerialism, London: PalgraveSpringer.

Klikauer, T. & Campbell, N. (2020). Inside Amazon, Counterpunch (4 September 2020). Retrieved from https://www.counterpunch. org/2020/09/04/inside-amazon/.

Klikauer, T. & Simms, N. (2021a). The Madness and Malady of Management Studies, Counterpunch (29 March 2021. Retrieved from https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/03/29/the-madness-andmalady-of-management-studies/.

Klikauer, T. & Simms, N. (2021b). Snake Oil Salesmen of Management Studies, ZComm (4 April 2021). Retrieved from https://zcomm.org/ znetarticle/snake-oil-salesmen-of-management-studies/.

Kropotkin, P. A. (1902). Mutual Aid, A Factor of Evolution (foreword by A. Montagu, The Struggle for Existence by T. H. Huxley, new introd. for Garland ed. by E. Kingston-Mann), New York: Garland Pub. (1955 & 1972).

Lepore, J. (2009). Not So Fast – Scientific management started as a way to work. How did it become a way of life? The New Yorker.

Levi, P. (1959). If this is a Man, New York: Orion Press.

Levi, P. (1988). The drowned and the saved (transl. from the Italian by R. Rosenthal), New York: Summit Books.

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto (Das Kommunistische Manifest. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/ archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/.

Nyberg, D. & Wright, C. 2022. Climate-proofing management research, Academy of Management Perspectives, 36(2), 713-728.

Parker, M. 2002. Against Management – Organisation in the Age of Managerialism, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Parker, M. , Cheney, G., Fournier, V., & Land, C (Eds.) (2014). The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization, London: Routledge.

Parker, M., Stoborod, K & Swann, T. (eds.) (2020). Anarchism, organization and management: critical perspectives for students, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

Petersen, J. (1982). Violence in Italian fascism, 1919–25, in: Mommsen, W. J. & Hirschfeld, G. (eds.), Social protest, violence and terror in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Europe (275-299), London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Piven, F. F. & Clowad, R. (1971). Regulating the Poor: The Function of Public Welfare, New York: Pantheon Books.

Sahlins, M. D. (1974). Stone Age Economics, London: Tavistock Publications.

Thompson, E. P. (1963). The Making of the English Working Class, London: Victor Gollancz.

Thompson, E. P. (1967). Time, work-discipline and industrial capitalism, Past & Present, 38(1): 56-97.

Tourish, D. (2013). The dark side of transformational leadership: a critical perspective, London: Routledge.

Tourish, D. (2020). Management Studies – Fraud, Deceptions & Meaning Research, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.