The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stretching the Iron Cage: The Constitution and Implications of Routine Workplace Resistance
Abstract
Organizational scholars have shown considerable interest in the rise of complex systems of organizational control, sometimes referred to metaphorically as the process of tightening the iron cage, as well as patterns of workplace resistance to it. More recently, the scholarly spotlight seems to have shifted from formal modes of employee resistance to more informal or routine forms of workplace resistance. This paper presents a detailed ethnographic account of informal resistance and its ability to limit managerial control in a health maintenance organization undergoing the computerization of its administrative functions. Our study adopts a more problematic approach to understanding routine resistance, tracing its discursive constitution in the workplace. Using the findings of an ethnographic study involving observation and interviews, we show how routine resistance was discursively constituted and how it limited organizational control in interesting and unexpected ways. This discursive constitution was achieved through (a) owning resistance, (b) naming resistance, and (c) designating indirect resistance. The paper also analyzes how these different discursive constructions limited managerial control by affirming autonomous self-identities, renegotiating roles and relationships, and reinterpreting dominant managerial discourses. Finally, broader implications for understanding routine resistance in organizations are drawn.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Cited by
Working for an Algorithm: Power Asymmetries and Agency in Online Work Settings
Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L., & Neysen, N. (2020) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839219867024 · Cited by 364
Decaf Resistance: On Misbehavior, Cynicism, and Desire in Liberal Workplaces
Contu, A. (2008) · Management Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0893318907310941 · Cited by 335
Cameron, L. D., & Rahman, H. (2022) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1557 · Cited by 269
Zhang, A., Boltz, A., Wang, C. W., & Lee, M. K. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501866 · Cited by 166
Metadata
- Authors
- Prasad, P., & Prasad, A.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2000-08
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 387-403
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2134436075
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Stretching the Iron Cage: The Constitution and Implications of Routine Workplace Resistance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.11.4.387.14597
- The paper
- Prasad, P., & Prasad, A. (2000). Stretching the Iron Cage: The Constitution and Implications of Routine Workplace Resistance. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.387.14597
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.