The aim of the mainstream Change Management literature is to benefit one organisation, sector, industry or country, which inevitably must be to the detriment of others. The Change Management literature is replete with prescriptions about how to introduce effective change through visions and leadership, communication or participation. A translation model suggests instead that the management of change must be understood as ‘negotiable, a practical and revisable matter, and not something that can be determined once and for all’. The mainstream approach towards researching Change Management focuses on how change relates to ‘competitive performance’ and so ‘practically useful research’ appears to be directed at and is meant to serve a managerial audience and presumably the shareholders who profit from their actions. The ‘productive’ understanding of power advanced by Foucault could be seen as offering an equally ‘propertied’ approach or reflecting the view that elites’ possess power hence those who are able to produce others seemingly hold all the power.