Management Learning Copyright g 1999 Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi Vol. 30(1): 27–42
Gill Musson and Laurie Cohen University of Nottingham and Loughborough University
Understanding Language Processes A Neglected Skill in the Management Curriculum Abstract Understanding how language works is central to an understanding of how organizations work. This argument is well rehearsed in the organizational literature, and is implicit in many of the modules taught in management education. Yet students of management are rarely given a theoretical base or the tools and skills required for analysing language and other sign systems used in organizations. Using examples from current literature and the authors’ own research, this article argues that this omission should be rectified so that students of management can gain an understanding of how language functions to create particular meanings and serve particular purposes. The article describes the authors’ attempts to provide a theoretical base and relevant tools and skills to management students within their own institution. Three people were at work on a construction site. All were doing the same job, but when each was asked what his job was, the answers varied. ‘Breaking rocks’, replied the first. ‘Earning a living’, answered the second. ‘Helping to build a cathedral’, said the third. (Taken from a speech by Peter Schultz, chief executive of Porsche in the US, cited in Vander Weyer, 1994: 66)
The central premise of this article is that an understanding of how language works is essential to an understanding of organizational processes. This is not a new proposal, particularly among management theorists (see for example Alvesson and Willmott, 1992; Forester, 1992; Gergen, 1992), but it is an understanding that has rarely been reflected in management education. Few management syllabuses address the issue of language directly, although there is often an implicit recognition of the important role it plays in organizations. But this tacit recognition of the centrality of language in creating and reflecting organizational realities is usually confined to modules that address rather intangible topics such as organizational culture. Even then, students are rarely given access to the most rudimentary critical language skills with which to begin to analyse what actually happens in organizations. We believe that this is a fundamental skill which should be taught to students of management and management research, and which would prove useful in many areas of organizational 1350–5076[199903]30:1; 27–42; 007263
28
Management Learning 30(1)
analysis and practice. The article reports on an attempt to introduce some core language concepts into management education in our then institution, Sheffield Hallam University, and thereby at least to begin to fill what we believe is a central omission in management training. The following four sections of the article review some important literature which reports on the significance of language in and around organizational life. The discussion is also embellished by excerpts and examples from our own research. The final section of the article focuses specifically on the workshop which we have designed for use in our own institutions.
Language and the Creation of Organizational Realities Organizational theorists have written widely on organizations as cultural phenomena (see for example Alvesson, 1994; Bate, 1990; du Gay and Salaman, 1992; Gowler and Legge, 1986). This view sees the sharing and negotiating of meaning as fundamental to organizational life, and language at the heart of such processes. In this section we review several notable studies on the relationship between language and organizational cultures, and suggest that not only is an appreciation and understanding of language crucial to the researchers and consultants working around organizations, but also to the people working in them. The starting point, both for this article and for the language workshop, is a view of the organization not as a static entity, but as a dynamic process, constructed and reconstructed through everyday activities and practices. Fundamental to such an approach is a blurring of the traditional distinction between structure and agency. In contrast to structuralist perspectives which privilege structure, considering agency only in so far as it illuminates this structure (see for example Levi-Strauss, 1987; Hawkes, 1977), we see these two phenomena as inextricably linked. Similarly, Boden takes issue with the view that structure and agency represent two different levels of analysis; suggesting instead that ‘action must be seen as an active component of structure, not just an outcome’ (1994: 201). We agree with Boden when she argues that language, and in particular everyday talk is fundamental to this process; that organizations are constantly created and recreated through the unfolding dynamism of talk (p. 202). It is important to stress here that Boden is referring to parole, or mundane, everyday talk—carried on in telephone calls, meetings and corridor conversations—in which people ‘inform, amuse, update, gossip, review, reassess, reason, instruct, revise, argue, debate, contest, and actually constitute the moments, myths, and, through time, the very structuring of the organization’ (p. 8). From this perspective language is not seen simply as reflecting or mirroring reality, or as Gergen (1989: 11) so eloquently puts it, as a ‘mere messenger from the kingdom of reality’. Rather, language is acknowledged as central to the processes whereby organizational realities are constructed. This perspective is reflected in the growing literature which explores the role of talk in the construction of meaning in organizations. This literature focuses on the analysis of a variety of linguistic forms, including metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Sackmann, 1989; Tsoukas, 1991), myths (Brown, 1994; Campbell, 1988; McWhinney and Battista, 1988), jokes (Collinson, 1994; Dwyer, 1991; Rodrigues and Collinson, 1995) and stories (Boyce, 1995; Gabriel, 1991, 1995). Whilst an extensive
Musson & Cohen: Understanding Language Processes
29
review of this literature is clearly beyond the scope of this article, in the section that follows we briefly consider two approaches to organizational storytelling to illustrate the way in which language serves to both create and reflect organizational realities. The first focuses on the way in which stories are used by individuals to create a sense of themselves within their organization, while the second explores storytelling as a means of constructing a sense of collectivity and shared purpose. Storytelling and Individual Sense-making It has been suggested that narratives provide a framework in which people make sense of their worlds (Baumeister and Newman, 1994; Wells, 1987). People construct narrative accounts as part of their sense-making process, as a way of preserving and communicating information, and they do this through the telling of stories. For example, Bate suggests that in organizational contexts, ‘stories and storytelling are not just diversions. Stories connect facts, store complex summaries in retrievable form, and help people comprehend complex environments’ (Bate, 1994: 260). Bate, like Boden (1994), insists that stories do not simply act as a mirror within which the organization is reflected: ‘Stories are not a symptom of culture, culture is a symptom of storytelling’ (p. 260). Rather, they serve as a kind of scaffolding, giving structure to organizational processes and practices; in this sense, stories are seen as intrinsic to the development of organizational cultures. Gabriel has carried out a number of important studies into the significance of organizational stories (1991, 1995), exploring salient features, dominant themes, characters, emotional qualities, and narrative morphology, and has considered the usefulness of a psychoanalytic approach to the interpretation of organizational stories (1991). Gabriel argues that the real power of such stories lies not in the extent to which they ‘accurately’ report particular events, but in the way in which such events are infused with meaning, in their symbolic significance. As Benjamin has suggested, the domain of the storyteller is not ‘facts-as-information’, but ‘facts-asexperience’ (1968, cited in Gabriel, 1995: 480). What is important here is the way in which individuals experience their organizations, and the role of stories in constructing this reality. Gabriel provides examples of how individuals create very different stories about the same events. Far from casting doubt on the ‘validity’ of these stories, he argues that this variety is indicative of the way in which individuals ‘constitute themselves as subjects’ (1995: 481), and how their version of ‘reality’ is based on these constructions. In this view ‘organizational truth’ is not something ‘out there’ which is simply communicated through narrative; rather, it is dynamic and polysemic, based on experience and constructed by the organizational actors themselves. Organizational Stories and Collective Meaning Whereas Gabriel sees stories as vehicles through which individuals construct themselves within their organizations, Boyce (1995) explores the role of organizational stories in creating a sense of unity and common purpose among organizational members. In contrast to Gabriel who studied stories as they happened in everyday, organizational settings, Boyce’s research into Friendship International, a religious organization committed to converting foreign students to Christianity while they study in the US, explored ‘shared storytelling as an intentional vehicle for collective
30
Management Learning 30(1)
sense-making and collective centring in an organizational setting’ (p. 111). Boyce conducted ‘storytelling events’ during which participants recounted both personal and collective stories about their experiences in the organization, reflecting on key themes and on the usefulness of the approach in creating organizational unity. Boyce maintains that: ‘Shared storytelling can express shared experience and be used to construct a collective sense’ (p. 110). At the same time as storytelling can be used to create shared sense-making, it can also serve to ‘collectively centre’ a group, a process by which members explicitly focus on their organization’s essential qualities. Thus Boyce identifies a number of ways in which shared storytelling could be useful to organizational members, managers and consultants, ranging from ‘confirming the shared experiences and meanings of organizational members’ (i.e. confirming the status quo), to ‘amending and altering the organizational reality’ (p. 134). However, while recognizing the significant influence of top management in shaping collective meanings, she suggests that by using organizational stories to examine the processes of collective sense-making and collective centring, what becomes apparent is the extent to which all organizational members must be seen as meaning-makers in their own right. Although the studies of Gabriel and Boyce both focus on storytelling in organizations, there are significant differences in their concerns and perspectives. First, while Gabriel is interested in exploring stories as they happen in everyday, organizational settings, Boyce uses stories, more explicitly, as a methodology for exploring organizational processes. Second, Gabriel focuses on how individuals construct themselves as subjects, and in so doing define their particular versions of reality. In contrast, while acknowledging this level of meaning-making, Boyce is much more concerned with the ways in which such meanings ultimately contribute to collective sense-making; she seeks to identify common myths, root metaphors, and ‘touchstone stories’ which permeate and, in a sense, transcend individual interpretations and contribute to a more unitary understanding of the organization and its purpose. Finally, whereas Gabriel focuses on that which is idiosyncratic, spontaneous and irrational, the process described by Boyce is planned and meticulously managed. These significant differences notwithstanding, Gabriel and Boyce share a view of organizational reality as a dynamic, evolving process, constructed by individuals, and a view of stories as central to this process.
Language and the Structuring of Organizations The above sections have considered the role of language in the sense-making process. In contrast, this section focuses more explicitly on organizational structures, looking specifically at four studies which explore the way in which language serves to structure and reflect relationships within organizations. Talk as Organizational Cement Alvesson (1994) is interested in the symbolic representation of organizational culture; like Boden and Gabriel, his focus is organizational talk. In an article based on his study of a Swedish advertising agency, Alvesson explores the relationship
Musson & Cohen: Understanding Language Processes
31
betwen talk and the management of occupational identities and impressions. Organizational discourses, he maintains, serve several functions, including the socialization of newcomers, legitimation of the branch, and the safeguarding of the ‘uniqueness and unification of advertising work as well as strengthening the individual and collective identity of advertising workers’ (p. 155). In addition, the occupational identities and impressions of the advertising professionals, constructed through language (and other meaning systems such as clothing), serve to enhance their clients’ perceptions of their abilities. In his conclusion, Alvesson argues that in professional service sectors like advertising, where there is considerable ambiguity, the level of discourse is particularly revealing: ‘the more ambiguous is ‘‘reality’’, the greater significance of language as an autonomous power’ (p. 560). Alvesson found certain discourses to be fundamental in the construction of occupational identities and impressions of advertising professionals. In this sense, language seemed to function as a kind of adhesive, finding meaning in ambiguity and nurturing feelings of belonging. Language as the Carrier and Creator of Division and Scepticism Similarly, Bate’s (1990) study of British Rail reveals a close relationship between language and occupational identity. However, whereas in the context of the small, professional anti-bureaucratic advertising agency Alvesson reports a certain collectivism and shared purpose, this was not the case at British Rail. Indeed, Bate and his colleagues discovered a distinct ‘lack of identity, purpose and shared core values’ (p. 88). Language, in this huge bureaucracy, served to foster divisions and scepticism between departments: BR had become multi-cultural. The problem was not so much that groups spoke different languages—this has always been the case in the highly differentiated cultures of large organizations—but that each of the different tribes insisted on using its own ‘private language’ and refused—or could not—talk in a language that everyone could understand. (1990: 98)
Bate observed a stubborn refusal on the part of the different departments within BR to listen to one another, or to make themselves accessible to outsiders. Until this intransigence was recognized, and addressed, he was doubtful that any fundamental cultural change would occur. Indeed, at the end of the organizational development (OD) intervention, upon which this study was based, Bate found indications that people were ‘talking differently—and more consciously—to one another’ (p. 104). He took this as a promising sign that a process of real change was beginning to take root in the culture of BR. Silence and Din: Domination and Subordination In a sense, Alvesson’s and Bate’s studies can be seen as two ends of a continuum: in Alvesson’s small, anti-bureaucratic private sector agency, language served to cultivate unity, while at British Rail it served to foster division. Harlow, Hearn and Parkin’s (1995) research into ‘gendered noise’ looks at how ‘silence’ and ‘din’ work to create relations of domination and subordination within organizations. In contrast to
32
Management Learning 30(1)
Alvesson and Bate, whose contributions were grounded in case study material, Harlow et al.’s analysis is based on a variety of organizations and contexts. The concepts of ‘silence’ and ‘din’ are treated both metaphorically and literally, and Harlow et al. apply the concepts to the very structure of our society: the din of the public (male-dominated) sphere, and the silence of the private (female) world of domestic responsibilities, and the translation of this pattern within organizational contexts, where the ‘din of male leadership, management, rules, power and the decision-making structures (p. 97)’, is contrasted to the ‘silence’ of women who are frequently ‘not heard’, and who find progress difficult within these male-dominated spaces. The analysis is developed to incorporate the gendering of organizational structures, and the construction and expression of these structures through everyday interaction. It is important to note that while their focus is ‘gendered noise’, Harlow et al. insist that their analysis can equally be applied to other ‘silenced’ groups. Significantly, at the same time that language serves to perpetuate existing patterns of din and silence, Harlow et al. maintain that it is also a vehicle for subversion—and change. It is interesting that Harlow et al. do not restrict their analysis to the organizational context. Rather, they use it to examine the dins and silences within organizational theory itself, where ‘din’ encompasses that which is dominant— including not only theories and approaches, but also the theorists themselves—and the ‘silence’ of that which is seen as irrelevant or unimportant, or which is simply absent. Victim, Hero, Statistic, Rabble-rouser: The Construction of the Employee Although this article has thus far concentrated on talk, this is not to suggest that written texts are unimportant. While such texts lack the immediacy, spontaneity and evanescent quality of talk, in so far as they tell yet another story, and provide yet another lens through which to view organizational life, they make a significant contribution to our understanding. For example, Gowler and Legge’s (1986) study of the link between the image of employees as constructed in company reports and those companies’ industrial relations styles, aptly illustrates the way in which structural relationships are constructed, and conveyed linguistically, through official, formal documents. Gowler and Legge apply a ‘cultural perspective’ to their work on 23 companies’ annual reports. Consistent with the perspective taken thus far, their view is that organizational culture is both (re)created within and articulated through organizational symbols, in particular through the ‘mundane tools’ of senior management, such as calenders, reports, agendas and public statements. Central to these cultural texts is language, used to ‘create meanings, foster beliefs and state values. It is by such use that a corporate image expressive of an organization’s culture is created’ (1986: 9). Their study focuses on senior managers’ images of their employees, as presented in chairmen’s statements, and explores the extent to which these images are consistent with the ‘lived cultures’ of their companies’ industrial relations practices. Gowler and Legge found that references to employees were typically included in the chairmen’s statements within their companies’ annual reports. Implicit in these images was the assumption of a unitary frame of reference; employees were described as ‘working hard for the company, being loyal and dedicated to it,
Musson & Cohen: Understanding Language Processes
33
overcoming challenges faced by it, as part of the company’ (pp. 10–11). In addition to these undifferentiated, almost ritualistic pictures, Gowler and Legge identified six other images: employee as hero; employee as public servant; employee as resource; employee as statistic and potential liability; employee as victim; and the invisible employee. The issue thus arises: ‘What is the relationship between senior management’s official image of their workforce and the image which is played out in everyday interaction?’ Gowler and Legge tentatively conclude that there appears to be a certain consistency between companies’ industrial relations styles and the images presented in the public statements. What is particularly interesting as far as this article is concerned, however, is the way in which senior management’s view (which is portrayed as a unitary perspective) of organizational reality is created and articulated, both through official company documents and through its industrial relations practices—and the centrality of language in these processes.
Language and the Construction of Reality in the Wider Organizational Context We have thus far focused on language within organizations. However, organizations cannot be understood in isolation; rather, they must be examined in relation to the context in which they exist. This is a well established perspective in organization theory (see for example Clegg, 1990; Pettigrew, 1985, 1987; Turner, 1992), although theorists working from this standpoint often fail to address the role of language in this process. However, Fairclough (1992) makes the point that changes in language use are linked to wider social and cultural processes, and that this linkage can be traced through the emergence and development of different discourses. Similarly, du Gay and Salaman (1992) explore the developing ‘culture of enterprise’, and its implications for organizations in the 1990s. Their article emphasizes the point that both private and public sectors are informed and influenced by enterprise discourses: Whilst the enterprising language of the customer structures political debate, providing the rationale for programmes of intervention and rectification in the public domain—such as the delivery of health care, the provision of local government services and the delivery of education—it is also linked to a transformation in programmes and technologies for regulating the internal work of the business enterprise. (1992: 623)
We have found evidence of this in our own research. For example GPs have described themselves as ‘running businesses which have to attract more customers to survive’, at the same time as describing patients in terms of ‘seasonal variations’ and ‘margins of error which can be allowed to slip through the net before there are financial consequences’ (Musson, 1994). However, du Gay and Salaman argue that such discourses extend beyond Britain and ‘Thatcherism’; indeed, they must be understood as global phenomena. It is suggested that the discourse of enterprise acts as a ‘translation device’, moving between the worlds of political thought, social and economic policy and organizational processes (Miller and Rose, 1990, cited in du Gay and Salaman). It is important to note that although in this case the term discourse is used in the singular,
34
Management Learning 30(1)
it should not be assumed that this exists in any unitary way. For example, in Cohen’s (Cohen and Musson, 1996) research on women entrepreneurs, respondents understood and applied the term ‘entrepreneur’ in a variety of (frequently contradictory) ways: . . . it’s a very popular word at the moment. As I said, my daughter thinks it’s wonderful. I mean, when she saw that letter [inviting her mother to participate in the project], she said, ‘Oh, an entrepreneur!’ She said, ‘I can’t wait to tell everybody!’ (Owner/Manager, nursing home) I had this leaving do and the Director said, ‘I think you are an instinctive entrepreneur’. I was absolutely horrified and thought that it was the worst thing that anyone could say to me. Because I had a sense that being entrepreneurial was all to do with what Thatcherism was all about . . . We all know that being an entrepreneur is absolutely dreadful. (Management Consultant) I’m not sure how you are using the word. I was using it in a sort of pejorative, almost dogeat-dog sort of way, whereas I think it can have a much nicer way, which is about networking, linking, informing. (Psychologist, Head of Association of Independent Psychologists)
These contradictory connotations underline the importance of not taking meaning for granted. For example, while the discourse of entrepreneurialism may enable us to translate between worlds, we must beware of using language to homogenize meaning—recognizing instead the diversity of these co-existing/colliding/overlapping worlds. Furthermore, this recognition of heterogeneity may become even more important when working with or within organizations which exist and interact within the same institutional setting, where the same term can be used with quite different meanings and connotations. For example, the term ‘primary care led service’ is one which has much currency in the NHS at present. But current research (Musson, 1996) reveals that this term can mean very different things to different people occupying different roles in various sectors of the service. For example, GPs commonly interpret the term to mean a GP led service where GPs play the central role. Health authority planners and managers, on the other hand, use the term to mean a holistic service which is located within the community rather than in secondary care—that is, any service which is not focused primarily on disease and provided from a hospital. Such an interpretation is obviously much broader than the rather narrow focus of the GP interpretation, but both are equally legitimate. The point is that these meanings are obviously quite different in their implications and yet the differences are rarely explored or even articulated, still less translated. The studies cited above highlight the need for researchers and consultants, seeking to understand organizations as cultural phenomena, to be aware of the centrality of language in organizational processes. Such an understanding is equally important for managers and students of management. In so far as any organization encompasses and exists within a myriad of (often ambiguous) ‘worlds’, the ability to understand, move and translate between them is fundamental to the task of the manager. We believe that this reason alone justifies our attempt to place an understanding of language processes more centrally in the curriculum for students of management.
Musson & Cohen: Understanding Language Processes
35
Language, Leadership and Change However, the literature suggests that there is further justification for our focus on language skills in management education. For example, the work of Pondy (1978), Conger (1991), and again Bate (1994), suggests that language skills are essentially power skills, in that they hold the key to political influence and control in organizations. In this sense, the persuasive/political dimension of language can be seen as a key leadership skill. This is especially so in the current organizational era when persuading people to adapt to constant change is seen as a crucial aspect of the leadership role (Wilson, 1992). Moreover, as Conger notes, because of the need for organizations to be flexible and responsive to ever changing environments ‘the era of managing by dictate is ending’ (1991: 31). As such, the ability to motivate, persuade, induce and assure both within and outside the organization becomes even more central to effective leadership. The ability to translate ideas into action, to interpret between the different worldviews within and outside the organization, to create a framework for action which everybody can understand and accept is central to the craft of leadership. Pivotal to this ability is the art of rhetoric through which the leader becomes the meaning-maker, translating these new meanings into a new kind of ‘common sense’ (Bate, 1994: 257) through which the organization can act. Similarly, the current strategy literature is exhorting managers to move away from a simple emphasis on the ability to accurately analyse and forecast changes in the environment, to focus more actively on developing their organization’s internal competencies and capabilities (Hayes and Pisano, 1994; Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1992). Such a view rests on the assumption that managers and leaders cannot only recognize these inherent capabilities, but are also capable of developing them. This leads us to ask the question ‘How else can managers be expected to achieve all this other than through the mastery of rhetoric?’ Yet, in our own experience of teaching on many MBA courses, courses in organizational development and modules on managing change, the importance and acquisition of these rhetorical skills, together with a theoretical understanding of their significance, is rarely mentioned let alone explicitly addressed. It must be noted that this focus on language and leadership is not to suggest that language should only be seen as a means by which the most powerful organizational groups maintain their position. On the contrary, central to the workshop is a view of language as problematic, the idea that meaning is never unitary, nor can it be taken for granted. Indeed, as suggested by Harlow et al. (1995), language can also be used in resistance. Thus, we introduce the notion of ‘preferred meanings’, which represent the views of the powerful, and the way in which those in subordinate positions re-construct, challenge and undermine such meanings by ‘reading against the grain’. In the previous sections of this article we have examined a range of literature and argued that language plays a central role in: • the way individuals and groups make sense of their worlds; • and specifically in the structuring of inter and intra organizational relationships; • and that the mastery of language is at the heart of effective leadership. For these reasons we believe that language should be placed in a more central
36
Management Learning 30(1)
position in management education. In the next section we describe our attempt to rectify this omission in our own institution.
A Review of the Language and Organizations Workshop To date (December 1998) we have conducted numerous language workshops over the last three years, with MBA, MSc Organizational Development and Managing Change students. Some of these have been designed for six-hour teaching slots, although the majority have had to be confined to three hours because of time constraints. Tackling such a complex issue in such a short time, with students who have very little previous knowledge of the literature, has been challenging to say the least! However, we were helped by a grant from the Teaching and Learning Institute at Sheffield Hallam University to develop the framework of the workshop and associated teaching materials. In each workshop we have used a variety of teaching methods: pairwork; groupwork; simulation; traditional lecture; and visual stimuli: cartoons, scrapbooks, videos. Similarly, because we feel that it is important to explore language in its full context we did not want to limit the workshops to the organizational context. For example, the importance of organizational decision-making, organizational culture, institutional environments, or the functions of leadership—each of which has played, at times, a central role in the delivery of a workshop—was explored within society more generally. We therefore considered topics as wide-ranging as the notion of Britishness and the construction of national identity, norms and values expressed through language in the lecture theatre, and images of community in the title sequences of soap operas. Reflecting on Practice We have found that this variety adds to the interest and enjoyment of participants, however, at the same time, it has also highlighted a problem which we had not fully appreciated at the outset, but which is often said to characterize management education—the discrepancy between academic theorizing and management practice. In their feedback, the majority of students find the sessions ‘interesting, enjoyable and stimulating’ (student feedback). However, this is clearly not enough. They also want to know how the theories are relevant to their own situations and how to use what they have learned. By directly addressing these issues we have gradually modified the framework and the content as the teaching has progressed and we have had time to develop and reflect on our own thinking. In other words, we have learned and adapted our practice as we have gone along. The key lesson that we have gained from this experience is to ensure that the focus and content is directly relevant to the participants in their specific roles as practising managers, consultants and/or students of management. As a result, we modify each workshop to take account of the particular needs of participants, for example, we consider whether they are ‘insiders’ or ‘outsiders’, whether they are, as senior managers, predominantly managing or, as middle managers, also being managed. We also include a section which looks at communication processes more generally for two reasons. First, our feedback has shown us that participants expect some discussion of the role of communication in a workshop on language in organiz-
Musson & Cohen: Understanding Language Processes
37
ations, and we feel that meeting their expectations is central to preparing them to accept the more complex and abstract discussions later in the workshop. Second, our experience suggests that students have very little theoretical understanding of, for example, the basic communication processes involved in the different dimensions of verbal and non-verbal communication. In addition, examining the different levels at which communication operates, for example, interpersonal, professional, organizational and institutional, also allows us a way into discussing the role of discourses used by different groups, reflecting their particular speech genres or social voices (Bakhtin, 1986), in a way which is immediately relevant to the students’ own experience. These then are some of the central issues which we attempt to address in all workshops, and below we outline the generic content of a workshop to give the reader more detail and flavour of the student experience that we offer. Outline of a Typical Workshop We set the scene for each workshop by telling the students that it aims to address (although probably not totally answer) the following questions: • • • •
How do people make sense of their departments and organizations? What role do leaders play in constructing organizational meanings? To what extent are these meanings shared by subordinates? How do individuals in different departments manage to/fail to understand each other? • What role does language play in organizational change? We begin the discussion by asking the students to generate a list of words or phrases which are much used within their organizations, but which they believe are ambiguous, and may mean different things to different groups of people. This commonly results in a list of words such as innovation, mission, total quality, excellence, vision, enterprise. In addition to making links with the students’ own lived experience of organizations, this introductory exercise raises important theoretical issues which are developed as the session proceeds. In particular, it highlights the notion of meaning as dynamic—and problematic. It also allows us to develop the discussion around the complex interrelationship between language and organizational culture. Consistent with the studies of Alvesson (1994) and Bate (1990) noted previously, we have found that, while some students describe these ‘key words’ as reflecting a sense of collectivity and shared purpose within their organizations, others recognize their potential for reflecting (and creating) conflict and division. As a way of theorizing this we introduce a simple model of communication which focuses on the encoding and decoding process, rather than the linguistic code itself. This allows us to talk about communication more generally and to introduce the notion that the encoding and decoding processes are where problems of meaning are played out. Thus far students have found this model extremely helpful. Whereas typically, many have tended to think about communication in terms of modes of communication (telephones, fax machines, etc.), this model illustrates the process of communication, and in particular the interactive nature of this process (Bakhtin, 1986; Boden, 1994). Central to this discussion are the wider social, political, cultural and economic contexts in which communication happens—the inextricable links
38
Management Learning 30(1)
between individuals’ previous and current experience, and ‘the environment in which the text comes to life’ (Halliday, 1978: 109). On a light-hearted note we use cartoons, for example about ‘selective hearing syndromes’ based on stereotypical differences between men and women, to illustrate how this process can become problematic by means of the commonly held assumption of participants in a communication that they are working from the same, or at least very similar understandings. On a more serious level we use examples from our own research, for example we discuss how the significance of the term ‘evidence based medicine’ is understood differently in subtle but important ways by GPs, hospital consultants and health commission managers, and how these undiscussed differences can lead to ‘translation’ difficulties (Musson, 1996). In addition, we encourage the students to talk about examples from their own experience both inside and outside organizational life where they feel that basic assumptions have impacted on (mis)communication. We also touch on the notion of different discourses here (Musson and Cohen, 1996; Fairclough, 1992; Casey, 1993), although we return to this in more depth later in the session. At this point, to clarify what can become a rather complex and difficult discussion, and to respond to the few ‘so what?’ comments that we sometimes experience, we take a step back to consider what, essentially, the process of meaning-making is all about. To do this we introduce a variety of scrapbooks which we have constructed from the print media—including images as diverse as an English country garden, Nelson Mandela’s face, a group of flag-waving American children, and a milk float. We ask the students, in small groups, to consider their responses to them. We give them the following questions to focus the discussion: • What do these pictures say to you? • How do your interpretations compare with others in your group? • How can you account for these similarities and/or differences? Here, what becomes most apparent is the significance of culture in the process of meaning-making—and the notion of culture as subtle, heterogeneous, and often working on a subconscious level. Not only does this exercise illuminate the importance of national culture for meaning-making, but also the impact of socioeconomic background, ethnicity, gender, and even the significance of coming from different parts of Yorkshire! This exercise illustrates to students that as human beings we are continuously making meaning in order to make sense for ourselves. It also allows us to demonstrate that signs—in this case the media pictures—convey meaning and that language is only one, albeit very important, sign system. In addition, the title sequences from soap operas such as Coronation Street, EastEnders, Neighbours, and Home and Away serve to further illustrate the point. As a way of theorizing this process of interpreting signs, we introduce students to the notion of semiology (de Saussure, 1966) and ask them to think of the signs in their organizations which visitors might see on arrival, and the messages which these might convey. We theorize this through the concepts of denotation and connotation (Barthes, 1973) and embellish this discussion through a variety of props such as Union Jacks, and bunches of red roses and yellow daffodils. The students are quick to grasp the different meanings attached to the Union Jack in different contexts, and they have little difficulty in articulating the difference in meaning in giving someone red roses as opposed to yellow daffodils. In this sense, these props tap into their lived
Musson & Cohen: Understanding Language Processes
39
experience and therefore facilitate their learning. The key points that we want students to grasp here are: • that meaning-making is both contextual and relational; • that it is not fixed but can change from person to person and over time; • that our interpretations of the connotative level of meaning are largely unconscious yet they inform the way we act upon the world. We then bring the discussion back to organizational life by examining the usefulness of a semiotic approach to organizational culture. Specifically, we look at the utility of a semiotic perspective for uncovering the more intangible aspects of organizational culture which are embedded in their organizations (Linstead and Grafton-Small, 1992). This discussion brings us back to the role of language in creating and maintaining different realities (Alvesson, 1994; Boden, 1994; Bate, 1990). Specifically we look at the role of metaphors prevalent within the students’ organizations, and the discourses which populate and dominate them (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Fairclough, 1992). Students initially find this kind of analysis quite difficult to conduct on their own organizations. Indeed, we also found it difficult when we were testing the exercises out on ourselves. We have concluded that it is much more difficult as ‘insiders’ to uncover the taken-for-granteds, precisely because they play such a significant but unconscious role in our sense-making. One method that we have used to overcome this problem (with some success) is to ask the students to think about what a visitor from another culture, or indeed another planet might find ‘strange’ about their organizations, and why. For example, what might the physical layout say to a stranger, how might common organizational sayings and stories be deconstructed, what signals might the dress codes send and how might these be interpreted? As a way of illustrating these issues further we move the discussion away from the students’ own organizations at this point, and show short video clips of Disney and Hewlett Packard which illustrate vividly the different discourses of ‘theatre’ and ‘family’ respectively, evident within each of these organizations. We examine these texts in some detail and theorize this through the work of critical linguists Kress and Hodge (1985) and Fairclough (1992), to illustrate how different discourses are dominant in specific organizations, and to discuss the effect this has on the creation of organizational realities. We introduce the notion of power relations and ideologies here, and ask the students to think again about which discourses are given the loudest voice in their own organizations, and why. Again, we embellish this discussion with reference to our own research, looking at the appropriation of the enterprise discourse by doctors and women entrepreneurs (Musson and Cohen, 1996). We also address issues of vocabulary and grammar here, for example the use of collective versus personal pronouns, and the inclusion and exclusion of different items of vocabulary. We use excerpts from different company reports, and print media examples to illustrate how these different factors create different meanings, reflect different social relations, stocks of knowledge and beliefs. We conclude the workshop by giving participants a short extract from Margaret Thatcher’s speech to Parliament about the Falklands War, and asking them to analyse it using the analytical tools which we have outlined. We chose this excerpt primarily because the metaphors and pronouns which Margaret Thatcher uses are
40
Management Learning 30(1)
very pronounced and relatively easy for participants to identify. For example, the pronoun ‘we’ is used extensively to generate an inclusive ‘British’ in-group set in opposition to the Argentinians (and the ASLEF union leaders when appropriate). Thatcher also deploys metaphors drawn from the days of the ‘greatness of the British Empire’ such as ‘our sovereign territory’, and ‘sterling qualities which shine through our history’ to illustrate that the ‘faltering and self-doubt has given way to achievement and pride’ (see Barnett, 1982 for a full text and relevant discussion). Our hope in devising this last exercise is that students will be encouraged to use these skills to analyse the talk which gives life to their own organizations. Not simply because we think that this is an interesting thing to do, but because we believe that a greater understanding of language processes will make them more skilled as managers, consultants and leaders. The anonymous feedback which we have received to date suggests that they perceive this to be the case. We are aware, however, of the note of caution expressed by Fairclough (1992), that ‘discourse analysts are increasingly at risk of being incorporated into bureaucratic and managerial agendas’ (p. 239). We recognize that in designing and running these workshops for people in relatively senior positions we can be accused of exactly that. However, we defend ourselves by saying that we are trying to follow Fairclough’s advice to raise critical language awareness ‘in pursuit of change from below’ (p. 239) by offering these courses to the more junior levels of management and, importantly, by developing the teaching pack so that others as well as ourselves can deliver the workshop to undergraduate students as part of their pre-placement activities. In addition, there would be nothing to stop the same workshop being adapted for delivery to other, non-managerial groups of workers and we would welcome the opportunity to do so. Perhaps it is naive of us to hope that Fairclough is wrong in his prediction that ‘discourse analysts will be hard-pressed to prevent their well-intentioned interventions being appropriated by those with the power, resources and money’ (p. 240).
Conclusion This article has argued that a knowledge of how language functions as a sign system and as a dynamic social activity is central to an understanding of organizational behaviour. Indeed, we would suggest that trying to understand organizational behaviour without this knowledge is like trying to understand a foreign film without sub-titles, or trying to read a balance sheet without a knowledge of accounting techniques. Following on from this, the article has also argued that critical language skills should be incorporated into the education process of managers, consultants and students of management and management research. It has reported a workshop framework which was developed for this purpose.
References Alvesson, M. (1994) ‘Talking in Organizations: Managing Identity and Impressions in an Advertising Agency’, Organizational Studies 15(4): 535–63. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (eds) (1992) Critical Management Studies. London: Sage.
Musson & Cohen: Understanding Language Processes
41
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (C. Emerson and M. Holquist, eds, V. W. McGee, trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Barnett, A. (1982) Iron Britannia: Why Parliament Waged Its Falklands War. London: Allison & Busby. Barthes, R. (1973) Mythologies. London: Paladin Press. Bate, P. (1990) ‘Using the Culture Concept in an Organizational Development Setting’, The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 26(1): 83–106. Bate, P. (1994) Strategies for Cultural Change. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Baumeister, R. F. and Newman, L. S. (1994) ‘How Stories Make Sense of Personal Experiences: Motives that Shape Autobiographical Narratives’, PSPB 20(5): 676–90. Boden, D. (1994) The Business of Talk. Cambridge: Blackwell. Boyce, M. E. (1995) ‘Collective Centring and Collective Sense-making in the Stories and Storytelling of One Organization’, Organization Studies 16(1): 107–37. Brown, A. D. (1994) ‘Politics, Symbolic Action and Myth Making in Pursuit of Legitimacy’, Organization Studies 15(6): 861–78. Campbell, K. (1988) The Power of Myth. New York: Doubleday. Casey, K. (1993) I Answer With My Life: Life Histories of Women Teachers Working for Social Change. London: Routledge. Clegg, S. R. (1990) Modern Organizations. London: Sage. Cohen, L. and Musson G. (1996) ‘Entrepreneurial Identities: Reflections from two case studies’, paper presented to the Annual British Academy of Management Conference, University of Aston, September 1996. Collinson, D. L. (1994) ‘Strategies of Resistance: Power, Knowledge and Subjectivity in the Workplace’, in J. Jermier, D. Knight and W. Nord (eds) Power and Resistance in Organizations. London: Routledge. Conger, J. A. (1991) ‘Inspiring Others: The Language of Leadership’, Academy of Management Executive 5(1): 31–45. de Saussure, F. (1966) Course in General Linguistics, edited by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye in collaboration with A. Reidlinger; translated by W. Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill. du Gay, P. and Salaman, G. (1992) ‘The Cult[ure] of the Customer’, Journal of Management Studies 29(5): 616–33. Dwyer, T. (1991) ‘Humour, Power, and Change in Organizations’, Human Relations 44(1): 1–19 Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Forester, J. (1992) ‘Critical Ethnography: On Fieldwork in a Habermasian Way’, in M. Alvesson and H. Willmott (eds) Critical Management Studies, pp. 46–66. London, Sage. Gabriel, Y. (1991) ‘Turning Facts into Stories and Stories into Facts: A Hermeneutic Exploration of Organizational Folklore’, Human Relations 44(8): 857–75. Gabriel, Y. (1995) ‘The Unmanaged Organization: Stories, Fantasies and Subjectivity’, Organization Studies 16(3): 477–501. Gergen, K. J. (1989) ‘Organization Theory in the Postmodern Era’, paper presented to the Rethinking Organization Conference, University of Lancaster. Later published in M. Reed and M. Hughes (eds) (1992) Rethinking Organization: New Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis. London: Sage. Gergen, K. (1992) ‘Organization Theory in the Postmodern Era’, in M. Reed and M. Hughes (eds) Rethinking Organization, pp. 207–27. London, Sage. Gowler, D. and Legge, K. (1986) ‘Images of Employees in Company Reports: Do Company Chairmen View their Most Valuable Asset as Valuable?’, Personnel Review 15(5): 9–18. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotics. Newcastle: Edward Arnold. Harlow, E., Hearn, J. and Parkin, W. (1995) ‘Gendered Noise: Organizations and the Silence and Din of Domination’, in C. Itzin and W. Newman (eds) Gender, Culture and Organizational Change. London: Routledge.
42
Management Learning 30(1)
Hawkes, T. (1977) Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hayes, R. H. and Pisano, G. P. (1994) ‘Beyond World Class: The New Manufacturing Strategy’, Harvard Business Review (Jan–Feb): 77–86. Kress, G. and Hodge, R. (1985) Linguistic Processes in Socio-Cultural Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levi-Strauss, C. (1987) The View from Afar. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Linstead, S. and Grafton-Small, R. (1992) ‘On Reading Organizational Culture’, Organization Studies 13(3): 331–55. McWhinney, W. and Battista, J. (1988) ‘How Remythologizing can Revitalize Organizations’, Organizational Dynamics (August): 46–58. Musson, G. (1994) ‘Organizational Responses to an Environmental Disturbance: Case Studies of Change in General Medical Practice’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield. Musson, G. (1996) ‘The FACTS Project: Interim Evaluation Report of the FACTS Aspirin Programme’, a Sheffield Business School Publication. Musson, G. and Cohen, L. (1996) ‘The Enterprise Discourse: An Empirical Analysis of its Effects’, paper presented to the 6th Annual Communication and Culture Conference, Beijing, August 1996. Pettigrew, A. M. (1985) The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in ICI. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Pettigrew, A. M. (1987) ‘Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm’, Journal of Management Studies 24(6): 649–70. Pondy, L. (1978) ‘Leadership is a Language Game’, in M. W. McCall and M. M. Lombardo (eds) Leadership: Where Else Can We Go? Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Rodrigues, S. B. and Collinson, D. L. (1995) ‘ ‘‘Having fun?’’: Humour as Resistance in Brazil’, Organization Studies 16(5): 739–68. Sackmann, S. (1989) ‘The Role of Metaphors in Organization Transformation’, Human Relations 42: 463–84. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. P. and Shuen, A. (1992) ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’, working paper 90–9, University of California at Berkeley, Centre for Research in Management, Berkeley, CA. Tsoukas, H. (1991) ‘The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational Science’, Academy of Management Review 16(3): 566–85. Turner, B. A. (1992) ‘The Symbolic Understanding of Organizations’, in M. Reed and M. Hughes (eds) Rethinking Organization: New Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis. London: Sage. Vander Weyer, M. (1994) ‘Mission Improvable’, Management Today (September): 66–8. Wells, G. (1987) The Meaning Makers. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Wilson, D. (1992) A Strategy of Change: Concepts and Controversies in the Management of Change. London: Routledge.
Contact Addresses Gill Musson is at University of Nottingham Business School, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD. [email:
[email protected]] Laurie Cohen is at Loughborough University Business School, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU. [email:
[email protected]]
