Critical Perspectives on Management Deconstruction and Application in the Contemporary Organisation - Essay Example

Openness and Uncertainty about the Other: Deconstruction and its Application in the Contemporary Organisation I. Introduction With the advent of new forms of technology and electronic-based information and data, the nature of organisations in the business environment is also gradually changing. In addition to changes in the mode of production and the products and services generated by the organisation, there is also increasing diversity among the members and structures of the organisation. That is, there is also a corresponding change in the human resource, wherein diversity can be in the form of racial, gender, age, educational, and expertise differences-professional and cultural differences. Along with these changes within the organisation, society has also been exposed to a new sociological perspective that best describes the contemporary society of today: deconstruction. Taking its roots from poststructuralism, which posits that there is "no central meaning in texts," deconstruction has been used as a new method to understand and interpret human resource changes and behavior in organisations today. Its usefulness stems from the fact that it generates multiple perspectives, or ways, in which the manager can best assess the nature of the organisation's human resources. The ability of deconstruction to look into a subject or object in different ways is useful not only in decision-making processes, but also in the implementation of these decisions within the organisation. This paper discusses the role that deconstruction plays in the contemporary organisation, influencing its very nature and processes. Drawing from both theoretical and practical applications of deconstruction as applied in the business perspective, specifically in business organisations, I discuss and analyze the presence of the "Other" in organisations when applied under the deconstructionist perspective. Moreover, in addition to identifying the presence of the Other, the development of the behavior of openness and uncertainty when the manager encounters a posstructuralist interpretation is also analyzed. Finally, the relevance and significance of deconstruction per se, and the application of deconstruction in the business organisation are integrated in the final part of the analysis, integrating both theory and application to understand the nature and dynamics of the contemporary organisation. II. The theoretical foundation of deconstruction To better understand the practical use of deconstruction in business organisations, its theoretical foundations must first be investigated. Deconstruction takes its root from poststructuralism. As a sociological thought, poststructuralism "deny that there is any central meaning in texts," a thesis that also adopts the assumption that there is no universal truth or way of interpreting objects or subjects that people experience in their everyday lives. Theoretically, deconstruction "shows that whatever meaning is derived is wrong. Since there is an unending set of possible meanings in any text, there can be no central or true meaning at all" (Littlejohn, 1999:223). These claims are developed from the increasing need of academicians and social scientists to know the limit at which knowledge-building and development have reached since the advent of modernism. Deconstruction as a new perspective in the schools of thought extant provides humanity with the opportunity to further improve and develop the knowledge that we have. The pursuit of "truth" is no longer achieved by gaining an in-depth knowledge of the phenomena that trigger humanity's curiosity, but rather, truth is now discovered by knowing the wide range of knowledge available to us humans, whether this knowledge is only at the most basic level. That is, knowledge production is no longer intensive, but rather extensive and diverse, as posited by deconstruction. Other theoretical explanations on deconstruction are, at best, descriptive in nature. Take as an example Bennington's elucidation of deconstruction as applied in the different disciplines and areas of knowledge: Deconstruction does not have a place for language over here, and a world over there to which it refers. Elements in the language refer to one another for their identity, and refer to non-linguistic marks which refer in turn for their identity and difference. There is no essential difference between language and the world, the one as subject, the other as objectThink of Deconstructionism as extending the world paradigm if you likeIt does not prescribe a practice more or less faithful to it In this descriptive definition, deconstruction is identified based on 'what it is not.' Deconstruction is delineated from the other perspectives that has dominated human knowledge in the past centuries, specifically functionalist, structuralist, and critical theories. These perspectives have similarities distinct from deconstruction: all three dominant perspectives subsist on the fact that every phenomenon has its own nature, description and definition, and dynamics. Unlike deconstruction, these perspectives, which mainly developed during the modernist period, posits that every object or subject has its own definition and meaning, and is subjected to interpretation. What distinguishes deconstruction from other perspectives, then, is the absence of definition and meaning of deconstruction. Even its definition of claiming that objects/subjects have no central meaning is just a simple manner of describing, but not exactly identifying the wholeness of, deconstruction. Martin's (1990) study on the process of deconstruction-reconstruction of texts from a feminist viewpoint illustrated the use of deconstruction as a means to generate multiple meanings and ways of analyzing a text (or object/subject). In the study conducted, deconstruction is viewed as the carrier of "suppressed conflicts and multiple interpretationsin order to undermine all claims to objective 'truth'" (340). Central to Martin's understanding and use of deconstruction as a new perspective in analyzing her study is the "challenge" that deconstruction presents to the researcher or interpreter. This is because deconstruction can be viewed objectively or subjectively, and either way, both manners of interpretation are acceptable, if not entirely wrong or right in its interpretation. Through the study, deconstruction takes on a meaningful purpose, at least for the researcher's objectives. Strictly, deconstruction has no definition and purpose, but Martin's study gave this new perspective its distinct identity, 'custom-fitted' for the objectives of her study. For her, deconstruction has a purpose, in that it allowed her to look into texts from a feminist point of view by drawing out and interpreting meanings that she generated from the text. Though a multitude of meanings (and interpretations) were generated, one or two of these meanings and interpretations allowed Martin to make sense of the text (data) she was studying. The process of collecting meanings and interpretations, and finally choosing a meaning and interpretation appropriate and suitable to the researcher's objective/s shows the usefulness of deconstruction in generating preliminary data or information about a phenomenon under study. From these theoretical definition, description, and use of deconstruction, the multiple meanings and interpretations generated from analyzing a text, object, or subject can be collectively identified as the concept of the "Other." The Other is the term used to describe the unknown meaning and interpretation, the undiscovered facet of a phenomenon in human life and environment. The Other has two potential paths: the first path is for it to be generated from a particular phenomenon, and use the Other as a means to understand the phenomenon. However, the Other can be generated but not used by the researcher/interpreter. Thus, in this second path, the Other exists, but its existence has no purpose yet, unless the researcher/interpreter has managed to recognize its usefulness as additional information in his/her study and as additional knowledge to humanity's understanding of its world and the realities that people experience everyday. Apart from its two paths of discovery and use, deconstruction can also generate two kinds of behavior from the researcher/interpreter himself/herself. Deconstruction allows us to be more open to the possibility that there are still knowledge and other versions of the "truth" available in the world we live in. Because this perspective claims no subsistence to one form of meaning and interpretation, interpreters then depends on both subjective and objective understanding. Subjective understanding of a phenomenon is generated from the interpreter himself, while objective understanding is developed from the interpreter's observation of the phenomenon and its relationship with the physical and social environment where it occurs. Another behavior that develops from utilizing deconstruction is the cultivation of the feeling of uncertainty among interpreters of a phenomenon. This feeling of uncertainty is motivated by the Other, wherein its elusiveness can not only generate the positive attitude of openness, but also the negative feeling of uncertainty. Uncertainty stems from the individual's ignorance of the existence of a meaning or interpretation surrounding the said phenomenon, and inevitably, one's uncertainty can lead to an attitude of openness. The feeling of not knowing everything about a phenomenon permits the individual to hope-that is, keep an open-mind-and entertain the idea that there exists another part of knowledge about the phenomenon that can be ground-breaking and potentially change the way we see, understand, and interpret a phenomenon. III. Deconstruction and the Other as Applied in the Contemporary Organisation In the context of business, deconstruction and the Other are best applied in analyzing organisational behavior, specifically on human resource. In the contemporary organisation, the Other is especially prevalent in the face of increasing changes in management styles and technological innovations. The manager becomes the interpreter of the organisation, and the human resource his/her 'text,' which is constantly subjected to scrutiny, as the manager-interpreter seeks ways to understand on how to best manage the human resource to produce better efficiency and effectiveness. Centering the focus of discussion on the human resource of the organization is vital in uncovering the nature and concept of the Other. As Nahessi had explicated in his analysis of structures within organizations, the individual or "actor" assuming a role within the organization is not only important because of his/her actions and behavior, but also because the individual himself/herself is the object, "a construction of communication processes, which make themselves observable by constructing actions which can be accounted to" (Munro and Jones, 2005). The role of the individual as both object and subject enables the manager-interpreter to look into human resource into different facets, which are explicated in this part of the discussion. As mentioned earlier, the manager-interpreter will be faced with a multitude of meanings and interpretations as s/he uncover different phenomena and occurrences relevant to human resource within the organisation. Some of these will be uncovered and use, while many others will remain undiscovered (but still exist, waiting to be discovered). The effectiveness of the manager-interpreter of the contemporary organisation is measured not only on his/her ability to discover these meanings and interpretations, but how to utilize these interpretations for the improvement of the organisation. That is, the manager-interpreter of the contemporary organisation should effectively handle both open-mindedness and uncertainty within him/her, and channel both behaviors to create an ingenuous way of managing human and physical resources in the face of diversity and rapid change. An example of the deconstructionist tradition in the contemporary organisation is reflected in the work of McKendrick and Carroll (2001), a study that attempted to describe the "new organisational form" and revolution of the organisation (661). One of the most interesting insights expressed in this study is that there had been no clear understanding of what contemporary organisations are in the face of their increasing growth and role in the market they are in. The authors centered on "what did not happen" to these organisations, wherein managers failed to identify the identity of their respective organisations in the market they are placed under, and failed to distinguish themselves among other companies that also exist under the same market (675). Clearly, the objective here is definitely not from deconstructionist perspective, for the authors sought to create an identity and definition for the new organisation they were analyzing. However, as exemplified earlier, deconstruction is useful in generating preliminary information about the organisation-both its nature and dynamics-and use these different facets of meanings and interpretations to create a new identity that will make the organisation unique from other organisations. Evidently, deconstruction is the anti-thesis of what organisations should be: deconstruction has no definite form, while organisations seek to create its own form and structure in order to function efficiently. Nevertheless, the usefulness of deconstruction is mainly found in the organisation's dynamics, wherein diversity and change prevail and are rampant. In this case, the Other is present in the manager's inability to discover and create a relationship with the potential meanings and interpretations that can be generated from the organisation itself. When the authors tried to know "what did not happen," they were actually trying to find out what facet of the organisation remained undiscovered and unused by the management, potential opportunities and assets that had been overlooked or simply taken for granted because of the lack of openness and/or high level of certainty on the part of the manager-interpreter. What this case points out is that in the face of an evolving organisation, there are inherent changes developed, and these changes later morph into new forms of characteristics that can serve as a potential opportunity and identity of the organisation. The lack of openness to the Other will mean the loss of an opportunity to reinvent one's organisation into something new and original, while a high level of uncertainty on the part of the manager could lead to the stagnation of the organisation's growth and competence as a major player in the market it is competing in. In effect, to ignore the Other and disregard the attitudes of openness and uncertainty is also to deny the organisation a chance to change and evolve. The implication of this is that, if all other organisations will (unwittingly) adopt this pattern of stagnation or halting of growth, then the market and in general, the business sector, would fail to progress towards a new stage of development. The business sector and its players will never know the extent of their potentials and limitations as a result of their inaction to uncover the Other. While the previous study discussed centred on the new organisational evolution in the face of technological change and innovation, another example provided in the discussion of the Other talks specifically about the individual as the primary resource of the organisation. In a thought-provoking analysis of the relationship of the "human body" vis--vis organisational theories and the postmodern society, author Styhre (2004) sought to determine the role that the body plays in the face of technological innovation and changing view of human resource as applied in the business organisation. The main point expressed in Styhre's analysis is the inherent lack of consideration on the human body, both as a physical and abstract manifestation within the organisation. Managers (as interpreters) using the deconstructionist tradition must learn to assess human resource in the many facets it exists in, wherein Styhre was able to uncover two facets: the "naturalistic body, the pre-social, pre-techno-scientific body" and the body that is "always already placed within techno-socio-political frameworks that inscribe various qualities, skills, possibilities, and genealogies into the body" (109). Putting two different dimensions or interpretations on the human body create profound insights on the way managers will formulate and create decisions in increasing the organisation's efficiency and stability of its structures. The manager, given this information, becomes an interpreter, and is prompted to confront the Other. Having learned that human resource, specifically the individual, has more than one facet that make him/her difficult to assess as a member of the organisation, the manager will then develop the habit of constantly seeking new ways of uncovering the other facets of human resource that are still unknown (openness), and will always believe that what he knows about the organisation's members will not always be enough to create a clear-cut definition and form of what the organisation should be (uncertainty). In effect, the real concept of an evolving organisation is the constant discovery of new characteristics about the organisation and its elements and members. In addition to this, an effective manager in an evolving organisation is one that has learned to recognize the existence of the Other, and responds to it promptly through the attitudes of openness and increased level of uncertainty. The ability of the manager-interpreter to confront the Other means s/he is not afraid to accept changes and is willing to infuse these changes for the improvement or evolution of the organisation. IV. Synthesis From the theoretical foundations and analysis of deconstruction as applied in the business organisation context, it can be said that deconstruction's lack of universality and uniformity is consistent with its claim of non-centrality. Disallowing the researcher/interpreter to uncover, define, and describe a phenomenon is keeping in the tradition of knowing and, at the same time, not knowing. By this, I meant that while the researcher/interpreter uncovers a meaning and interpretation of a specific phenomenon, the discovery does not end. There will always be another meaning and interpretation "lurking" around the phenomenon, another facet that the knowledgeable researcher-interpreters know remains to be undiscovered yet existent. These potential facets of meanings and interpretations are collectively called the Other. The Other always governs our realities and environment when looked into using the deconstructionist perspective. Through the Other, the interpreter learns to adopt the attitudes of openness and uncertainty, for these are the qualities needed in order to motivate the interpreter to continuously pursue new knowledge and discover new 'versions' of truth extant in the world we live in. When applied in business organisations, the Other remains the same, only the context and its players change. The researcher-interpreter now becomes the manager-interpreter, and the text/subject/object is, most often, the individuals/members of the organisation, identified as the organisation's human resource. Discovering and uncovering the Other, however, brings into fore the question of whether human resource as either object or subject-the text of the manager-interpreter-is an ethical action that must be conducted for the benefit of the organisation. Jones' (2003) elucidated on the ability of deconstruction to generate potential meanings and interpretations, while at the same time, it can also uncover limitations that the interpreter cannot simply engage in because it might compromise the organisation's human resource. Deconstruction as applied in the business organisation, then, is also an opportunity for manager-interpreters to 'be aware of these limitations' that might hinder them from further discovering other meanings and interpretations inherent in the members of the organisation (240). Bibliography Bennington, G. "Deconstruction is not what you think." Deconstruction: A Reader. Martin McQuillan (Ed.). Jones, C. (2003). "As if business ethics were possible, 'within such limits'." Organization, Vol. 10, Issue 2. Littlejohn, S. (1999). Theories of Human Communication. London: Wadsworth Publishing. Martin, J. (1990). "Deconstructing organisational taboos: the suppression of gender conflict in organisations." Organisation Science, Vol. 1, No. 4. McKendrick, D. and G. Carroll. (2001). "On the genesis of organisational forms: evidence from the market for disk arrays." Organisation Science, Vol. 12, Issue 6. Nassehi, A. (2005). "Organizations as decision machines: Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Organized Social Systems" in Rolland Munro and Campbell Jones (eds.). Contemporary Organization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Styhre, A. (2004). "The (re)embodied organisation: four perspectives on the body in organisations." Human Resource Development International, Vol. 7, Issue 1. Read More