User talk:Icedchetty

Mathew chetwynd
Thank you for your work on the article Mathew chetwynd. Could you please expand the article? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wet Disposal.
Hello. I changed your article Wet Disposal into a redirect to Assassination. If you have content regarding assassination (with sources) that you wish to add, may I suggest you add it to the assassination page, rather than the Wet Disposal page? Thanks. Logical2uReview me! 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Metaphors In Organisations
The manager is a coherent actor engaged in the pursuit of organizational objectives. Post-structural analysis of organizational behaviour use textual metaphors to falsely describe the manager as a network of distributed technologies or a fragile assemblage of texts and practices often charged with emotionality.

'''Setting the Scene: The Modern and Post Modern Coherent Manager

The modern manager'''

Modernism is a term used to describe scientific theory, knowledge, technology, power and experimentation as aids in the deconstruction and shaping of western societies’ industrial era. The coherent manager uses a scientific methodology to ensure organizational objectives are met. Rationality is a key feature in meeting goals as logical functionality drives productivity: Frederick Taylor selected people to work in a tin mine under his logical assumption the bigger and stronger the worker physically looked, the higher the level of productivity performed. Framing the less muscular looking workers as less productive may have been a poor assumption in terms of human capabilities, but the rule of this logical and simple scientific theory: ‘the bigger and stronger the tool, the more effective it will be.’ can be applied to any object. Taylor did not consider exceptions to the rule, even regarding humans in this case. This rule follows the body and not the mind because the body does not need to think or include feelings in its equation. The body cannot display emotion through any means of movement or position unless the mind is controlling it to do so. Arguably, the workers used their mind to control their body to work or no work could be achieved. In this case Taylor was the mind, the workers were the machine operated and controlled by Taylor. It is unlikely the harsh nature of this rational management style reflects the personality of the manager him self. By human nature, people tend to be ‘Good Samaritans’ which would suggest the manager is subjected to limitations by the organisations of how the employees can be treated, commonly the rational behaviour was the only method to achieve the objectives desired by the organisation.

The post modern manager

In our present post modern era, the manager may consider different approaches to the scientific management styles because of the mounting evidence in the failure of enterprises, and partially because in this era legal requirements demand organizational objectives to include such rights and ethical responsibilities to candidates and employees. Using Taylor’s example of the tin mine workers, the post modern manager would look at different perspectives and consider the possibilities that miners with less physical attributes may be more effective in managing the other workers with their personality traits. The more strong effective miners may have ideas to create a better working environment. This freedom allows the worker to operate their own body opposed to being operated by a mind other then their own. This is because with the post modern manager there is no separation between the body and mind, both are a single entity so the body is able to show emotion. This language influenced constructivist view represents managers today in which you have a sense of freedom, choice and self control within your job.

Post-Structuralism Analysis of Organisational Behaviour

Consequent upon structuralism theory, post-structuralism is not a theory, “But a set of theoretical positions, which have at their core a self-reflexive discourse which is aware of the tentativeness, the slipperiness, the ambiguity and the complex interrelations of texts and meanings.” In a post-structural organizational environment, the manager is a social actor but only social in that very environment because his identity is created by the actants around him. Intimate relationships are formed but only in relation to business because it is the one shared value and symbol every surrounding actant has in common with each other.

Reality in post-structural organisational behaviour is seen as very culture specific because organisations in the post-modern era have to constantly adapt to change in the market place as well as different employee ethnicity. “The greater attention to the specifics of cultural working into the arenas of discourse and cultural practise, the greater the emphasis in the role of language and textuality in the construction of reality and identity.” We now live in a linguistic world meaning language is discourse governed by knowledge and the way of speaking about a specific subject: “We can imagine only what we can symbolise, speak of only what we have language for, speak only in the ways our rules of discourse allow us to.”  To simplify the above text, the manager uses metaphors, language and ideology because it structures the sense of being and meaning. None of these uses are clear so personal interaction and emotionality is essentially used to create these senses.

Derrida discusses all meaning, life and society as we know is textual, meaning there is nothing outside the use of text, we are confined to only use what exists in language and anything outside this boundary is not governed by the rules of discourse, thus making dialogue/communication not understandable. Deconstruction of the text is the meaning and understanding of why such texts, symbols or language were used in the situation at hand. This means the use of these texts, symbols and languages do not have a singular meaning, but a different meaning in each context used by the deliverer, and the interpretation of recipient. “The only way to properly understand these meanings is to deconstruct the assumptions and knowledge systems which produce the illusion of singular meaning.”

Post modernist Michael Crozier uses the concept that organisations can be viewed as a game in which actors within an organisation are the game players. In this elusive conceptual metaphor, the organisation is assembled by a collection of independent games in which no player is equal or that there is any agreement to the rules of the game. The players are given freedom in the game but subjected to constraints. If the players objective is to win the game, a rational strategy must be applied which obeys the nature of the game and complies with the rules of nature. The rules of the game nature may be broken by players if the game strategy creates a modification to the game itself to create a benefit in some way. The game concept is a second level metaphor in which the manager is able to promote his own interests without disrupting the primary functioning of the organisation. A robust organisation will promote non controlling behaviour which allows the manager to pursue self interest. If this is the case, regardless of whether the manager looses or wins his game, “it will not alter the collective goodwill, in fact, improve it.”

Arguably the game metaphor can be seen as a concept with little use or no real merits in the context of human and organisational behaviour. This is because it is difficult to see how to apply the metaphor to different organisations, and to emphasize how it needs to be applied in different ways. Not only does the nature of the game depend on the type of organisation but the usage of the metaphor is dependant on the nature of what happens in the organisation. The metaphor can be subject to change “Without explicitly being explained or perhaps even noticed by the author” because of happenings which can occur. Through the eyes of the manager, this is when the surface of the first level metaphor of which the governor manages remains the same, but the second order metaphor controls the use of the remaining first level metaphor creating ‘metaphorical drifting.’ As illustrated by Wittgenstein’s ‘language game’ idea, a collection of such complex words creates a difficulty in finding meanings because the nature of complex metaphors are “non-analytic, involves fantasy, and inspires greater awareness of how a metaphor can vary in meaning.”

Culture, Language and Dialogue

Metaphors are not just a language tool we can use to express feelings, it is a linguistic device to transfer properties of one concept to another meaning. In Foucault’s ‘Order of Things’, language developed from metaphors though the use of signs, symbols and expressions. Linguist George Lakoff reached two fundamental conclusions, “All language is metaphorical, and all metaphors are ultimately based on our bodily experience.” Society has evolved in a way which has allowed language to develop into a single entity. In this post modern era, language now has the ability to create metaphors its self, for example; ‘Sexed’ entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 2003 to be used in the context ‘sexed up,’ meaning to enhance something to give a greater appeal. Originally, “The phrase was used in the 1990s to indicate what a couple in a relationship do to each other.” Taken and used in a different context, in 2003 a reporter stated the government was accused of sexing up’ allegations in Iraq. Consequently this triggered a trend in which society used and applied the word to any person or object in the context of ‘sprucing it up.’ We use metaphors as a convenience to express a lot by using very little, this chapter will discuss why the use of a metaphor does not always convey the intended message, and how the coherent manager should use metaphors which can be accepted and understood in the intended context. Metaphors suggest analogies which may have an adverse effect to what the manager may have intended, they can even be critical or dangerous in a war organisation. The danger arises when the analogy is applied without thinking about how it could be taken out of the context it was delivered in. An example used in many present organisations is ‘take it to the next level.’ This simple phrase you might hear from your manager could be interpreted on many different levels from simply ‘work harder’ to even go beyond the means of your job or organisation to achieve a goal. Sparking up such motivation many not be as easy as pushing a button but once people are motivated, they can become very creative, even to the extent that it sometimes happens that they see even better ways to do what the manager may have wanted, or they might even find a problem with the original task or command. Thinking about what may be considered as ‘making that extra step’ can be taken to a level which may be considered as inappropriate or even unethical on the organisation or the customers behalf. The misinterpretation of instruction caused by cultural difference is often the cause of communication problems which arise from managerial instructions. In this instance the manager may be literally be described as a fragile assembly of texts because the outcome was not considered let alone known before the instruction was delivered. Social dialog in organisations often allow cultural differences to arise. This is not only apparent with actors from different societies, gender can also create a difference when it comes to interpretations. This is because what may be considered as acceptable to a male actor may be interpreted wrongly when delivered to a female actor especially when open-ended social dialog and expression is being used.

The manager uses metaphors to partially structure daily concepts, not at random, but more in the form as a coherent system that allows humans to conceptualise their experience. Before the manager can use a metaphor, consideration needs to be taken into account of how the recipient will interpret the dialogue. Factors which need to be considered are what type of relationship the actors have, what culture and gender the recipient are, and what the possible action the recipient may consequentially take. These considerations should be an instantaneous cognitive thought process, a coherent manager will have the ability to develop judgement and make accurate assumptions when to use specific metaphors. Without this ability, misinterpretations of a metaphor could a create a problem. “Framing a colleague before social interaction has an importance for the future development of relationships.” It would be biased to assume the manager is at fault if a colleague does react badly to the expression received. The manager would expect the colleague, regardless of gender and culture, to possess and accept the five dimensions of basic cultural values: Psychologist Geert Hofsted performed cross cultural studies between 1994 and 1998 researching multi national corporations in 53 different countries. Hofsted concluded that employees across all the organisations generally abided by the following values: “Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity and time horizon.” It is fair to say if an employee does not accept and abide by any of these values, it can be assumed the manager is in error.

An organisation can describe a manager’s position as a leader, or person who has control or direction of the department. Through post structural analysis, the manager her/himself uses their own practices to control their area which suggests they will adopt what ever methods work best, even if it may involve unique practices, but that’s to be expected in an organisation. Currently organisational behaviour will vary depending on the company’s strategy and objectives, the manager may have an impact on the behaviour depending on the way the workplace is operated. In the modern era, the manager tended to be a coherent actor and govern the organisation with an iron bar. It would be biased to say because of this strict ruling, consequently the impact he had on the organisational behaviour was extremely high. Both the manager and organisation should be placed under the same category of organisation behaviour because it is likely the reason for such rational governing is because of such high organisational objectives.

Communication is usually a main factor in the success of a highly operational work place. If the level of communication required is not apparent because of the lack in functionality, its questionable if the manager is coherent or not because in the type of organisation analysed, it may be necessary for the manager to take a role which does not have much connection with the staff. The communication between management and employees does not necessarily have to be expressed verbally, but it is necessary to communicate at least emotionally to create the desired sentiment for those who are under authority of the manger. This level of communication became essential after the transition between the modern and era because of the change in organisational behaviour which occurred from society and demands. Structuralism can be questionable in the language used in our present era, but language used by the manger became dominantly post structural in the mid twentieth century when the dominant autocratic management style went out of practice in many organisations. An organisation no longer sees language as a neutral tool used for just verbal dialog, feelings and thoughts now have to be incorporated as language can be seen as a single entity, even capable of creating our thoughts and feelings for us as well as reflecting them.

Social Constructivism

Social constructivism developed significantly through the transition between modernism and post modernism. This is because language became more of a tool then just dialog used to receive and deliver messages and instructions. Knowledge and reality are actively created through the use of language, so the learner is able to use the language and adapt it to relevant scenarios. In modern organisations, the rational approach of language from the manager was operated in a rather dictative format which may inform the employee how to correctly perform the task, but when the employee comes to complete the task, they do not possess the knowledge because no interaction occurred during the learning process. A post modern organisation would expect the employee to interact until they completed the learning process of how to complete the task. The fundamental problem of the interaction is time and productivity levels, this is where individuals are able to construct their own methods and practises to reach the objective, but in modernism if you do not understand the command, you may be labelled useless for the task.

Modern Management Styles in Current Organisations

A current organisation which would be an appropriate example to draw upon is the University Of Lincoln Sports Centre (ULSC). Despite the ULSC being operated in our era, a scientific management style is used to govern the staff by a very coherent manager. The ULSC consists of twelve staff aged between eighteen to twenty five who all share similar values in terms of their social network. As most of the staff are not salaried, a social network exists where each staff member takes into consideration each others personal schedules, and arranges work shifts on a rotational basis. Between the staff, a very social and friendly atmosphere is present causing the workforce to have slow rate of productivity. Often there is little work to perform on quiet shifts, or some staff are only on duty for insurance reasons which creates an opportunity for the manager to set tasks which clearly don’t need to be performed. Due to these factors, the manager feels the only way she can run the centre is through a very autocratic management style. As soon as staff begin their shift, a set of tasks are given which the worker has no choice but to perform them, neither select their own method of how to carry out the task. As dated as this rational management style may seem, it appears to be the only way to prevent the staff from socialising during work time, and making sure all the daily and weekly tasks are completed. The manager has very little communication with the staff, partially because of the lack of shared social values and age difference. When communication is made, it is usually an instruction when often follows with a threat. No verbal threat is ever literally given but it can be very easily assumed by the body language and tone of the managers voice which gives clear intension there will be consequences if the command is not carried out. The manager admits the only experience ever gained in management was through operations management, which explains her being so coherent. It is questionable if the all the staff are misinterpreting the metaphors she emotionally expresses along with notes written in the works daily diary. In another similar organisation, this type of manager and management style may easily fail because the staff are likely to be in a completely different social network as the ULSC targets young flexible staff to perform roles which would not be suitable for older people with commitments. For the ULSC, it is apparent the strict oppressive commands distributed to the staff are the only way of making the current organisation function without changing the roles and positions of each employee.

Using Metaphors to Control Employees

It is critical for the success of coherent managers to motivate employees through any means. No doubt in modernism metaphors were consistently used to achieve this, but most likely in a linguistic sense as employees were neither in a position or knew how to react in any other way then the intended repressive manor expressed by the manger. Managers in the era use their own creative practises that contribute towards the better functioning of an organisation. An organisation may often see the managers’ practises as questionable, especially if the seem almost unethical despite the success it may have. A powerful metaphorical tool used by a manager to control employees, even senior to the manager is ‘story telling.’ Through childhood storytelling and lies are used to create emotions and deliver messages, for example, we lie to children that ‘Santa Clause’ brings their presents. This lie is acceptable because of the benefits it has through the learning curve of child development. Political statements often exaggerate headlines to strategically deliver messages in an intended way. This strategic form of lying can be used as a positive effectual tool to drive employees, and deliver the desired intentional message otherwise not effectively possible through other means. “It also makes your prospect feel at ease with you, which means that they will not only enjoy speaking with you, but also enjoy listening to you.” For the manager to use this tool, the recipient must become the purpose of the story so the story must speak to them addressing their concerns. It has become acceptable in organisations to accept the use of exaggeration and lies to express and deliver messages, this is because in our media orientated society the recipient routinely decodes such exaggeration and finds the real story them selves. “Language lends itself to a level of ambiguity that we use to deliver more than the literal meaning. Thus adult tell each other ‘fairy tales’. It never truly ends. Even scientists, to some extent, exaggerate the implications of their theories when they try to explain them to ordinary people. A distortion of reality seems to be useful, if not essential, to human communication.” The organisation itself may never accept it exaggerates or lies in any form, neither will the manager, but the organisation will expect the manager to do so if it achieves results. The manager will successfully use this tool without showing or admitting it to the organisation, if the use of this tool is not successfully carried out, the organisation may again literally describe the manager as a ‘fragile assemblage of texts and practices often charged with emotionality.’

Conclusion

From an academic perspective it is possible to analyse the use of metaphors in organisational behaviour. It is highly unlikely employees of the organisation itself will ever discuss such theories and concepts on the use of metaphors. The use of metaphors are routinely practised daily by everybody in society, usually without thinking about them because it has become a social norm to give metaphorical expressions, and for the recipient to decode them to understand the message. Metaphors used the modern era were only usually taken in a linguistic sense, and were used with just the intention to express feelings, or deliver a message without going into detail. As language became a single entity as we moved into the post modern era, its important to consider how people may react to the way the metaphor is expressed. This includes the tone of voice, body language, the relationship with the recipient, and the context it is used in because language is emotion, and the manager may unknowingly be causing tension or delivering the wrong messages.

It would be logical to frame the manager as coherent in the modern society because managers predominantly practised scientific management during this era which required an autocratic leader. As society evolved into a society, management styles have become less coherent because of change in organisations. Many organisations today would not function if everything was based on logical and rational decision making. Implementation of management by managers and the employees is critical to the success of a functioning organisation because of the many cultural, market, customer and developmental adaptations the company is consistently subjected to. Many current organisations however still portray a strong scientific management style. This is usually seen in factory and line work where there are tight daily targets and time is more of a critical essence closely controlled by line managers and foremen. Despite the oppressive nature if the scientific management trend, as discussed with the University of Lincoln Sports Centre example, it is the only type of management style which proves successful. Working conditions certainly have improved, but this is arguably because of the existence of unions, and codes of practise.

Labelling the manager as a coherent actor can falsely describe the manager in our era, but it greatly depends on the type of organisation, and whether the manager is acting upon large masses of employees or a small group. Admittedly, the days of rational management behaviour have past but so have our industries, large-scale factories and assembly lines so the needs to for such rational management behaviour has also past. Some organisations may depend on employees having equally responsibility, and management to just handle more subjective administrative roles. Drawing a conclusion to whether the manager is coherent or not in our society will always be controversial depending on the type of organisation the reader has governed. Every organisation will benefit the use of a coherent manager, but also a manager who can adapt to the changes in society. A mixture of rational governing, democratic styles and experience certainly may or may not have been suitable in the past, but as society begins to enter its post post-modern era, it would seem critical that all key elements and more should be possessed by the manager to help ensure the organisations success.

Author

Mathew Chetwynd

Bibliography

Buchanan D & Huczynski A. Organizational Behaviour, Prentice Hall, London, 1985.

Derrida Jacques, A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds, Harverster Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, 1991.

Fillingham Lydia A. Foucault for Beginners, Airlift Book Company. London. 1993.

Gannon, Martin J. Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys Through 23 Nations, 3rd Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2004.

Gannon, Martin. J. Working Across Cultures: Applications and Exercises, Sage Publications, London, 2001.

Hassard John, Parker Martin, Postmodernism and Organisations, Sage Publications, London, 1993.

Kritzman, Lawrence D. Michael Foucault., Politics, Pilosophy, Culture, Routledge, New York. 1991.

Lakoff George, More Than Cool Reason, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1989

Law, John & Hassard, John. Actor Network Theory, Blackwell Publishing, 1999

Marcouse Ian. Business Studies. Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1999

Rabinow Paul. The Foucault Reader, Penguin Books. Canada. 1991.

Scaruffi Piero, The Nature of Consciousness, The Structure of Life and the Meaning of Matter, Scaruffi Publications, Italy, 2006

Proposed deletion of Metaphors in Organisations
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Metaphors in Organisations, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wet Disposal
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wet Disposal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Happy Editing! &mdash;  15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)