Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Relevant academics

    Posted 03-16-1999 03:56
    Hugh Willmott's quick response to my introductionary notes to this list
    opened up a many-sided exchange of ideas and expression of emotions. My
    initial inquiry was concerned with the methods of teaching organizational
    renewal (or development work more generally). In the end of my message I
    said: "As a newcomer to the list, I have no historical touch to you
    conversations. But hopefully time will cure this lack of touch..."

    Now I have got a touch, indeed. A few comment's on what I have read:

    I thank those who responded to my initial question of how to teach in way
    that students can learn something of the academic skills. Among these I
    include the capability to question hegemonic world views ('rationalities'),
    such as the (owner-) and manager-centred consultancy packages. This is
    especially important when we are teaching the practices of development work
    (for forthcoming researcher-developers, consultants, internal developers
    and their customers). Inability to accept the 'validity' of the 'realities'
    of the other actor groups is a severe hindrance in such tasks. This is a
    very practical, as well as, a crucial theoretical and moral point for me.
    Some of you may ask what is 'academic' in this. My answer is: a core skill
    in academic work is the ability to learn to alternate (theoretical)
    perspectives, which can also be more generally called self-reflection. And
    all perspectives are based on certain interests and positions in social
    fields. In development work, blind acceptance of only one perspective
    results in some form of violence, and I cannot accept it as a method of
    professional work.

    I am perplexed by the violent and abusive style with which some of the
    list-members joined the discussion. This is not the first time that I have
    met such forms of communication in business and business school circles. I
    am sure that I don't want students to learn that style of communication.
    Thanks to Steve Payne for constructive comments on this problematic.

    Some of our US colleagues don't seem to recognice that all societies are
    not like theirs. Taking a more critical attitude towards the management
    models fashioned in the USA is quite natural in countries which are in the
    receiving end of the international consulting business (and investors). In
    countries which have different cultures, and in which even business school
    academics cannot avoid recognizing that there are no universal best
    practices or 'rationalities'. Comparative studies support these doubts.

    It is curious why there seem to be such a deep break in the USA between
    most business school academics (at least in most sub-fields), on the one
    hand, and social & human sciences, on the other hand. For example, a number
    Japanese management gurus have simply read US literature in these other
    fields, interpreted Japanese practices with the help of them, and thereby
    enriched (even popular) management studies. The theoretical isolation of
    some US business schools academics was nicely illustrated with the
    reactions to the idea of 'social construction', an idea made originally
    popular by US sociologist. I believe that in many other places it is basic
    teaching stuff, and it is not taken as a party program.

    Is this overgeneralized attempt at understanding the abusive and violent
    rhetoric of any relevance? I admit that it certainly requires elaboration,
    as it comes close to nation-wide stereotypes.

    Keijo

    ********************************************************
    Keijo Räsänen
    Professor, Organization and Management
    Department of Management
    Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration
    P.O. Box 1210, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland
    Fax +358-9-431 38 700
    Tel. +358-9-431 38 444
    E-mail 'krasanen@hkkk.fi'
    *********************************************************


  • 2.  Relevant academics

    Posted 03-16-1999 05:25
    Keijo makes a number of points that not only reflect cultural differences in understanding the nature of management, but also the political realities of the conception and transmission of knowledge about management.
    1. the Anglophone world does not either generally accept nor is aware of the concept of development work.  Sure, the rhetoric of self-development/awareness, QWL, diversity, and the like, is quite widespread, but it is not generally tied to systematic application of design principles on the one hand, and the type of 'mastery' norms seen in Europe (what I would associate with your "method of professional work") on the other hand.   Development is more closely associated with behavioural models - and it is not coincidental that movements like CBT/CBP have gained far more purchase in these countries than Europe.
    2. the assertive (lets be nice) reaction to alternative views reflects the (mis)understandings of what 'alternative' means.  Rather than challenge and engagement (in academe),  it is seen as threat and invasion.  Interesting that one writer conceived constructionism as the 'threat to the American way of life'.  While cannot put a measure on this, but there is a (un)healthy dose of political rejection here ('facts', 'measurement' 'objectivity' etc are good, and 'opinion', 'interpretation' and 'irrationality' are bad) in which our system (economic and political) is based on facts and "the alternative" is based on irrationality and must not only be rejected but also rooted out.   The ideology of hard vs soft areas in academe is never-ending, get rid of one soft group and next thing you know another appears.
    Again the degree to which this reflects the client market - business - I can only guess, but its there.
    3. given 1 and 2, the logical extension is to include only those views seen as consistent with facts, objectivity and business and exclude all others.  I too find it interesting that European management/business schools tend to reflect the range of social science in them, in contrast to the Anglophone world.  But, the vast majority of so-called new ideas in B-schools come from the 'theories to long dead anthropolgists, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists' [sincere apologies to Keynes]

    Dave
    --
    ________________________________________________________________________
    David E. Morgan,  Ph.D.    Email: d.morgan@unsw.edu.au
    School of Industrial Relations and Organisational Behaviour,
    University of New South Wales,
    Sydney, 2052, Australia.
    Ph +61 2 9385 2181 (w) +61 2 9489 1448 (h)  Fax. +61 2 9662 8531
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Keijo Räsänen wrote:

    Hugh Willmott's quick response to my introductionary notes to this list
    opened up a many-sided exchange of ideas and expression of emotions. My
    initial inquiry was concerned with the methods of teaching organizational
    renewal (or development work more generally). In the end of my message I
    said: "As a newcomer to the list, I have no historical touch to you
    conversations. But hopefully time will cure this lack of touch..."

    Now I have got a touch, indeed. A few comment's on what I have read:

    I thank those who responded to my initial question of how to teach in way
    that students can learn something of the academic skills. Among these I
    include the capability to question hegemonic world views ('rationalities'),
    such as the (owner-) and manager-centred consultancy packages. This is
    especially important when we are teaching the practices of development work
    (for forthcoming researcher-developers, consultants, internal developers
    and their customers). Inability to accept the 'validity' of the 'realities'
    of the other actor groups is a severe hindrance in such tasks. This is a
    very practical, as well as, a crucial theoretical and moral point for me.
    Some of you may ask what is 'academic' in this. My answer is: a core skill
    in academic work is the ability to learn to alternate (theoretical)
    perspectives, which can also be more generally called self-reflection. And
    all perspectives are based on certain interests and positions in social
    fields. In development work, blind acceptance of only one perspective
    results in some form of violence, and I cannot accept it as a method of
    professional work.

    I am perplexed by the violent and abusive style with which some of the
    list-members joined the discussion. This is not the first time that I have
    met such forms of communication in business and business school circles. I
    am sure that I don't want students to learn that style of communication.
    Thanks to Steve Payne for constructive comments on this problematic.

    Some of our US colleagues don't seem to recognice that all societies are
    not like theirs. Taking a more critical attitude towards the management
    models fashioned in the USA is quite natural in countries which are in the
    receiving end of the international consulting business (and investors). In
    countries which have different cultures, and in which even business school
    academics cannot avoid recognizing that there are no universal best
    practices or 'rationalities'. Comparative studies support these doubts.

    It is curious why there seem to be such a deep break in the USA between
    most business school academics (at least in most sub-fields), on the one
    hand, and social & human sciences, on the other hand. For example, a number
    Japanese management gurus have simply read US literature in these other
    fields, interpreted Japanese practices with the help of them, and thereby
    enriched (even popular) management studies. The theoretical isolation of
    some US business schools academics was nicely illustrated with the
    reactions to the idea of 'social construction', an idea made originally
    popular by US sociologist. I believe that in many other places it is basic
    teaching stuff, and it is not taken as a party program.

    Is this overgeneralized attempt at understanding the abusive and violent
    rhetoric of any relevance? I admit that it certainly requires elaboration,
    as it comes close to nation-wide stereotypes.

    Keijo

    ********************************************************
    Keijo Räsänen
    Professor, Organization and Management
    Department of Management
    Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration
    P.O. Box 1210, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland
    Fax  +358-9-431 38 700
    Tel. +358-9-431 38 444
    E-mail 'krasanen@hkkk.fi'
    *********************************************************