Introduction Recently, a number of studies critically observed management as “not as a group or as a function but as a pervasive institution that is entrenched within capitalist economic formations” (Alvesson, Bridgman & Willmott, 2011: p.1). These critiques constitute Critical Management Studies. However, instead of being a whole, united perspective, Critical Management Studies (CMS) is consolidated of distinctive arguments that are embedded into a one pool. Hence, it is essential to understand the four perspectives: Critical Theory, Critical Realism, Post-Structuralism, and Labor Process Theory, as they produce influential perception of the universe in regards of the powerful insights of one’s behavior. Thus, the literature examined, as well, maneuvered me into associating my practice with the theory. Yet, two visions greatly energized me. I stumbled upon the flawless works by Burawoy through reading the Manufacturing Consent (1979) and Ackroys & Thompson’s Organizational Behaviour (1999); these two books are critically examining the Marxist Labor Process Theory (LPT), therefore arguing the deskilling of labor thesis developed by Braverman (1975). Main Body Labor Process Theory Power and Control The Labor Process Theory is shaped around the argument that capitalism suppresses the working class. During the last thirdly years, a considerable amount of literature has been published on the topic. Early scholars outline that capitalist agents, mainly in the form of managers steal the skills of workers, thus resulting in deskilling of labor (Braverman, 1975) Using personal observations, the author debates the use of power managers have, often resulting in misuse on workers in order to produce higher productivity with an increase exertion. However, many authors have challenged Braverman’s claims (Friedman, 1977; Burawoy,1979; Edwards, 1979; et.al). Therefore, this essay found the theory of Burawoy of particular interest. The first serious critiques of the labor process theory emerged during the late 1970s by Burawoy (1979). Instead of viewing capitalism authority as a tyrannical, often resulting in deskilling, the author examines a more preempt, coercive approach. The author intrigues the reader b