Complexity of Organizations and Unintended Consequences of Managerial Work - Literature review Example

Wittgenstein’s and Derrida’s work on language and their practical use in improving managers’ understanding of both the complexity of organizations and unintended consequences of managerial work Name: Professor: Course: Date: Introduction In his phrase, “The meaning of a word is its use in the language” (Wittgenstein, 1973, 43), Wittgenstein articulated on the ambiguity of the meaning of a word when the word itself can be used to represent another meaning. For instance, Wittgenstein can be argued to employ the so called material mode of speech. An example of this can be a situation where “A” can be taken to stand for “B”. Thus, “A” is “B”. In this regard, expression “A” can be replaced by the expression of “B”. In light of this, Wittgenstein’s statement can be analysed in the sense expression where the meaning of a word can be replaced by the expression of this word in its language. However, for better understanding of what Wittgenstein was up to, it would be critical to at least articulate on the phrase on focusing on his immediate context which says, “and the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer” (Wittgenstein, 1973, 43). In this regard, it is arguable that, since names can be taken to be words, the meanings of names are the meanings of words. In a different dimension, the name can sometimes be explained by pointing to its bearer. This is arguable true because sometimes words and names are explained with the help of a gesture (Gabriel, 2004). In regard to the phrase by Derrida, “I have only one language and it is not mine” Derrida, (1998, 1), it is apparent that all languages used, even if its mother tongue, it is full of translations since the use of language involves in its movement from one context to another. The movement in this case is referred to as translation. In a broader sense, although one might claim to possess a certain language and term it as his own, in the context of translation, it is arguable that one loses himself in language (Ruitenberg, 2010). When deliberating on the works of the two philosophers, it is apparent that their language articulation might have practical use in advancing managers’ contemplation of complexity of organisations and their positions as managers. This paper will articulate on the tenet of success or failure of organisations as a result of matters executed by managers in the context of the works of Derrida and Wittgenstein. Application of Wittgenstein’s theoretical insight to managers It is apparent that in the contemporary world, organisations have become more vigilant in the way managers conduct themselves in the execution of their duties. With the increase in completion, and in the bid of organisations trying to develop and maintain competitive advantage, organisational culture has been focal point for many organisations. In developing organisational culture, organisations rely on managers to devise mechanisms through which it can be achieved. This involves the managers coming up with strategies that can be used to have beliefs of the employees concur with the mission and vision of the organisation. Nevertheless, to cultivate a certain culture that may be deemed essential for development of organisational culture that can be used in developing and maintaining competitive advantage, managers have to change their beliefs to reflect the culture of their organisations. As Wittgenstein (1973) argued, for instance, if a manager is hot tempered and the organisational culture requires that he be polite, the manager has no option other than developing politeness in his place of work. That is, the meaning of the word politeness is in this case meaningful to the manager when he is in his place of work or when transacting business on behalf of the organisation. In this regard, it is arguable that Wittgenstein’s view of the meaning of a word is applicable by managers for the success of their organisations. If it happens that he may defy the organisational culture and decide to employ the meaning of politeness in his own understanding, he would end up being rude and arrogant to fellow employees and customers. This would be detrimental in that the organisation may end up losing customers who the organisation need for its success. Brink & Berndt (2004) argued that customers are primary asset of any given organisation and that if they are not treated well or when the organisation lacks the culture of customer service and public relations, the organisation would collapse or worse still exit from the market. Therefore, it would be indispensable for the managers to have a critical review of the meaning of words that could have detrimental effect on the performance and success of an organisation. Conversely, if managers decide to interpret the meaning of words that are contrary to the organisational culture meaning, they may end up being unfair to their fellow employees. This would be a disaster since employees are also considered as part of the primary assets of any organisation. Hoskisson & Hoskisson (2008) pointed out that employees wellness must be put into consideration of organisations have to thrive in any given highly competitive market. If it happens that they feel that their wellbeing is not catered for, they might decide to exit and seek employment form organisations that are deemed professional and with the right meaning of words such fairness and equality. In a different dimension and in the context of Wittgenstein’s employment of material mode of speech, where “A” mean “B” and where expression of “A” can be replaced by the expression of “B”, it is apparent that if for example, “A” in this case represent an organisation and “B” represent a manager, any conduct and behavior of “B” (manager) can be taken to mean what “A” (organisation stands for) (Ammereller & Fischer, 2004). In this regard, it can be analysed that if managers conduct themselves in appropriate manner, their behaviors are taken to mean what their organisations stands for. If managers, for example, treats employees well, then, the image of the organisation is represented by the good treatment of employees by their managers. This context is very critical in that it is widely used in the area of organisation performance and its image to the society. Schein (2010) argued that organisations that have an organisational culture where its employees conduct themselves in an appropriate manner tend to perform well than those that fail to do so. This means that such managers have ethical code of conduct and perform their duties in regard to betterment of their organisations. Such managers will have their work done on time, treat their employees well, produce high quality services and above all, conduct themselves in a manner that symbolizes the spirit of their organisations. When it comes to corporate image of any organisation, this context is applicable in many ways. For instance, the issue of corporate social responsibility has become indispensable for many organisations due to its several advantages attached to it. Organisations that endorse the issue of corporate social responsibility have to ensure that their managers and employees develop an organisational culture that portrays the true image of the organisation. This means that the managers will devise different mechanisms of giving back to the community. This may involve initiation of different initiatives aimed at helping local people. For instance, they can decide to come up with programs or projects that can be used by young people in improving their livelihood. However, if the managers fail to do so, the issue of giving back to the community would not be realised. Thus, the organisations they work for would be seen as not being attentive to the issue of corporate social responsibility. Even though it is the managers that will have failed to articulate on the issue of corporate social responsibility, the society would interpret that it is the organisation that has failed and not the manager. Therefore, it is apparent that Wittgenstein’s view of meaning of a word is in its use in the language is applicable. The same case applies to issues regarding environmental conservation, which is stipulated in the corporate social responsibility. If managers fail to come up with ways of advising their customers on how they can enhance environment, for instance, by advising on the best way of disposing packaging materials or on how to they can recycle them, then the image that gets into the public is that the company that the managers work for do not have any regard to environmental conservation. Traits of a great manager and application of Wittgenstein’s theory Managers need to have distinct and professional traits that they must possess for the success of their organisations (Armstrong, 2011). If these traits are absent, they may end up failing to deliver, thus the failure of their organisations. For instance, managers need to be honest. This is indispensable in that their bosses and other employees will have confidence and trust in them. For example, if finance manager is not honest and trustworthy, he may end up misappropriating funds or stealing from the organisation. This is detrimental in that the organisation may in the long run end up having financial crisis. This can lender to financiers and shareholders withdrawing their support for the organisation. In fact, they do not see the managers as failures, but they would see the organisation that has failed to deliver. Some situations require patience. If managers fail to be patient, they may end up rushing in making decisions that can have negative impacts for the organisation. Such decisions can lead to situations where the organisation fails. This failure is not seen by others as the failure of the manager, but as the failure of the organization. In addition, managers need to be effective decision makers. It would be embarrassing where managers are unable to make decisions that require their attention. Some managers are reportedly having been cited to have had at some situations ran away from the responsibility of making decisions. Armstrong (2011) argued that manager needs to be flexible when executing their duties. This is indispensable in that due to continued development in technology, organisations have to be up-to-date on the same. If managers fail to implement the require strategies of advancing organisation technology, they may end up being behind other organisations. This may lead to loss of business and eventually the failure by the organisation. Managers also need to be accountable for all what they do. Some managers are unable to delegate duties thus poor quality of services. They at times, due to this fact, they shift blames to their juniors. Other employees see this situation as one created by the organisation. Although the manger is directly involved, the overall and end view is the organisation (Weick, 1995). In light if these deliberations, it is apparent that the meaning of a word is in its use in the language. The context of the conduct of any manager is interpreted in reference to the organisation they work for. Thus, their behaviors are viewed as the beliefs or organisational culture of the organisations they work for. In light of this, it is indispensable for managers to critically review everything they do as it indirectly affects the organisation they work for and that their conduct is translated to mean the conduct of the organisation. Application of Derrida’s theoretical insight to managers Schein (2010) argued that every employee slowly adapts to new place of work culture. This is in correlation to what Derrida (1998, 1) termed as “I have only one language and it is not mine”. Although manager would argue that their success is their own, in most situations, the work environment plays an indispensable role in shaping their skills and traits (Hjort and Kostera, 2007). For instance, if a manager used to work in a certain organisation where punctuality is not part of culture and where lateness is not a big issue, it would be difficult for such a manager to continue with the same conduct if he happens to work for a different organisation where they do not condone any lateness. In this regard, it is arguable that, the manager adapted to the issue of lateness in the first organisation because that is its culture and that he slowly adapted it (Kostera, 2008). However, if he happens to work for the second organisation where such this are not entertained, he would slowly adapt to its culture and become punctual and eventually an active and productive manager. In light of this, the manager cannot claim that these traits are absolutely his since they have been shaped by the organisations they work for. This is the same way that Derrida articulate (Derrida, 1977). In a different dimension, some managers join an organisation when they are well equipped will all positive traits that any organisation would want from a manager. However, if it happens that the organisation possess different or slightly less positive traits, the manager may end up adapting to these traits, thus eroding the positive one he posses (Kostera, 2008). In this case, the manger cannot claim that his traits are they way they are because of his own making, but due to the fact that he was subjected to an organisation with different culture. Research has documented that people tend to adapt to the environment they find themselves in depending on the circumstances they find themselves in. for instance, if a manager is subjected to a situation or works for an organisation that is corrupt, he may find himself in the midst of controversy if he is required to participate in corrupt deals and losing his job. Although he might be involved the action, the environment subjected to highly contribute to his making. A research conducted by Weick (2006) found out that people tend to change due to situations more than they change the situations they find themselves. For instance, instead of a manager subjected to corruption try to avoid the vice and introduce ways of eliminating it, most of them get assimilated by the corruption itself. It is imperative that the vision of any organisation be the guidance of what the manager want to do at any given moment and situation. This way, he would use his ethical, professional and skills in deliberating on the best course of action. Those that fail to act in this regard end up performing poorly and tarnish the image of their organisations (Morgan and Burrell, 1979). With these deliberations and the application of the two theoretical insights, it is apparent that managers have a lot to learn from the two philosophers and apply the knowledge in devising mechanisms of improving their performance through advancement of their managerial skills with the intent of deliberating on the success of their organisations. Conclusion Wittgenstein articulated on the meaning of a word when the word itself can be used to represent another meaning. He employed the so called material mode of speech where “A” can be taken to stand for “B”. In addition, the name can sometimes be explained by pointing to its bearer. In regard to Derrida, languages are full of translations. Although one might claim to possess a certain language and term it as his own, in the context of translation, it is arguable that one loses himself in language. In developing organisational culture, organisations rely on managers to devise mechanisms through which it can be achieved. , if a manager is hot tempered and the organisational culture requires that he be polite, the manager has no option other than developing politeness in his place of work. That is, the meaning of the word politeness is in this case meaningful to the manager when he is in his place of work or when transacting business on behalf of the organisation. If managers decide to interpret the meaning of words that are contrary to the organisational culture meaning, they may end up being unfair to their fellow employees. in addition, if managers conduct themselves in appropriate manner, their behaviors are taken to mean what their organisations stands for. This context is very critical in that it is widely used in the area of organisation performance and its image to the society. When it comes to corporate image of any organisation, this context is applicable in many ways. In situations where managers fail to articulate on the issue of corporate social responsibility, the society would interpret that it is the organisation that has failed and not the manager. The same case applies to issues regarding environmental conservation, which is stipulated in the corporate social responsibility. Conversely, Managers need to have distinct and professional traits that they must possess for the success of their organisations. If these traits are absent, they may end up failing to deliver, thus the failure of their organisations. In regard to the theoretical context of Derrida, although manager would argue that their success is their own, in most situations, the work environment plays an indispensable role in shaping their skills and traits. Reference list: Ammereller, E. & Fischer, E. (2004). Wittgenstein at Work: Method in the Philosophical Investigations. New York: Routledge. Armstrong, M. (2011). How to be an even better manager: A complete A-Z of proven techniques and essential skills. London: Kogan Page. Brink, A., & Berndt, A. (2004). Customer relationship management & customer service. Landsdowne, South Africa: Juta. Derrida, J. (1977). Of Grammatology. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Gabriel, Y. (2004). Myths, Stories and Organizations: Premodern Narratives for Our Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hjort, D. and Kostera, M. (2007) (eds.) Entrepreneurship and the Experience Economy. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Hoskisson, R. E., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2008). Competing for advantage. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western. Kostera, M. (2008a) (red.) Organizational Olympians: Heroes, heroines and villains of organizational myths. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kostera, M. (2008c) (red.) Mythical inspirations for organizational realities. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Morgan, G. and Burrell, G. (1979) Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann. Ruitenberg, C. (2010). What Do Philosophers Of Education Do (And How Do They Do It)?. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Weick, K.E., (2006). ‘The role of imagination in the organising of knowledge’, European Journal of Information Systems, 15:446-52. Wittgenstein, L. (1967) Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Read More