How Critical Management Studies Differ from Mainstream Management Research - Coursework Example

Critical and Post-Modern Theories Of Organisation How Critical Management Studies (or CMS) Differ from Mainstream Management Research Introduction The study of human organizations is an interesting and evolving body of inquiry, bringing to light many different aspects of organizations that influence their growth and dynamism. Organizations are the spawn of people's need to interact and cooperate with one another in order to ensure their common survival. As society grew in size and complexity, however, investigating phenomena dealing with increasing organizations’ efficiency and effectiveness dominated the attention of management theorists. Efforts of modern, mainstream, research turned on the employment of scientific theory for drawing insights into organizations, business organizations in particular. Of late, a new research orientation, initially reactionary and confrontational, challenged the body of knowledge accumulated by mainstream research, on the basis of relevance. This stage, called the postmodern era, is presently still at the stage of developing into a system of knowledge in itself. In its fledgling stage, the postmodern era has been characterized as the period of critical theory. A brief discussion of these concepts, and how they lead to Critical Management Studies, follows. Postmodernism and Critical Theory Postmodernism defies definition, for the simple reason that it defies what we were conditioned to believe as straightforward, logical and systematic. In one of many attempts at defining postmodernism, Hassard (2000) writes that postmodernism stands for the “death of reason” as it offers a frontal assault on methodological unity. Gergen and Thatchenkery (2004) examined what they defined as the three major assumptions of modernist organization science as (1) rational agency, (2) empirical knowledge, and (3) language as representation, a structure which cleaves to the scientific method of inquiry. They conclude that the postmodern perspective suggests the replacement of communal rationality for rational agency, social construction for empirical knowledge, and language as action for language as representation, with stress on ?reconstructing and enriching the aims of methods of research and on critical reflection, generative theorizing, and scholarly action within organizations” (Gergen and Thatchenkery, 2004, p. 2). Clegg (1990, p. 2) remarked that the crucial hallmark of modernity is an increasing process of differentiation, and that postmodernity, in contrast is characterized by a decrease in differentiation, or process of “de-differentiation”. He further demonstrated that there exists no single approach that could adequately deal with real-world varieties of organizations. He concludes that success cannot be reduced to ‘culture’ but must involve a deeper insight into the varied ways organizations are constructed and reproduced, and for this there is no cut-and-dried pattern to fit all organizations. Critical Theory, on the other hand, is premised on the precept that our knowledge of ourselves and our societies, obtained through the techniques espoused by natural science and by cultural/social science, is inevitably partial and incomplete, and systematically distorted. (Mingers, 1992, p. 3) This realization triggers an awareness to seek out what is truthful and correct. In order to achieve this, according to Mingers, critical theory needs to: (a) critique existing theories and approaches, showing that our meanings and understandings, and the traditions from which they stem, are not true and honest but distorted by their socio-political development; (b) analyse the social structures within which we exist in order to reveal the causes of these distortions. This includes both the ‘lifeworld’ of our taken-for-granted daily existence, and the purposive organizations and institutions which have developed out of this; (c) enlighten ordinary people as to their real situation. Through the actual analysis and critique of particular historical and societal circumstance, it should enable actors to become enlightensed and self-reflective about the true nature of their situation and thereby empower them to develop control for themselves. Definition and description of CMS What, then, is CMS? Critical management studies (or alternatively, critical management science) refers to that relatively small, slightly marginalized, but fast growing, body of research that challenges conventions and structures that have been established by mainstream research. CMS applies critical theory to the area of management science, that area of inquiry which is essentially oriented towards taking action within specific problem situations. According to Mingers (ibid), this is the most distinctive characteristic of CMS, that it seeks to find practical and practicable solutions to existing problems. It must then effectively incorporate all important considerations into its real-world solution. This single overriding purpose of CMS has directed critical researchers to adapt such methods of discourse as to create a set of perceptions concerning the multifaceted characteristics of such studies. They are as follows: Characteristics of CMS 1. CMS is both oppositional and symbiotic (Grey, 2007, p. 464) It is critical of, but derives its rationale from, mainstream research. 2. CMS employs for the most part the postmodern method of “deconstruction”, bringing down many philosophical pillars which include the ‘unities’ of meaning, theory and the self. (Hassard, 2000 p. 1) 3. CMS, being essentially subjective, means that it must restrict itself to expressing individual actors’ commonsense perceptions and understandings, and must assume these, although conflicting, are equally correct and valid. (Mingers, ibid.) 4. CMS, in dissenting against the conventional, in effect is seen to reinforce the domination of the mainstream. This was given the term “repressive tolerance” by Marcuse (1969). 5. The CMS agenda is perceived by some to be more politically driven than scientifically motivated (Eden, 2003, p.391). On the other hand, since CMS draws its raison d'etre from mainstream research, it is essential to likewise characterize the latter, in order to describe what CMS is not. Juxtaposing CMS with mainstream research brings to fore certain perceptions concerning the characteristics of conventional studies, such as follows: Characteristics of Mainstream 1. Mainstream research requires academic rigour, which is often seen at odds with relevance in the practice (Grey, 2007, p. 464). The focus, singularity and structure that pervades mainstream research is consistent with the scientific method and characteristic of modern theory. Failure of a study to abide by this method casts it in an unfavourable light in the mainstream milieu, so there is a limit to the degree of creative research design in the traditional approach. 2. Mainstream is positivist with “mediocre” research methods (Grey, 2007, p. 466) Grey scores the strict procedures of mainstream research as the cause of the lack of at in this way are seen as useless to business application, and thus the perception of mediocrity. 3. Mainstream uses stringent approaches developed for the natural sciences (in particular, methods rooted in the scientific approach) but which is not suited to the field of business and the social realm (Mingers, 1992, p.2) Business research operates in the social arena, with a multiplicity of issues that set the context of the problem sought to be resolved. The research method should be able to accommodate this particular requirement if it is to yield useful conclusions. 4. Mainstream research has a mistaken view of its own purpose and rationality, seeing itself as an objective, value-free application of science, whereas in truth it is neither, but instead it aims at the effective use and control of the workforce (Mingers, p.3) A qualified opinion by Mingers, attributing to mainstream researchers an intention which may or may not be true. Still, it is indisputable that mainstream research does operate to seek, through mechanical inference, the optimal points at which business operates – among which, the most efficient use of labor, in order to attain minimum cost to yield maximum profit. The profit maximization/cost minimization/ productivity optimization aims of most mainstream research creates this perception that, far from being objective, it espouses the welfare of the capitalist against that of labor. 5. While erroneously naming itself as “scientific”, mainstream actually suppresses open discussion of ends and values in favour of a technical selection of efficient means. (Ibid.) This observation by Mingers is probably one of the most valid observations of mainstream research. The straightforwardness by which the scientific method attains validation substitutes rational discourse with mathematical technicality. Thus, there are instances when the results arrived at by mainstream research appear to adhere to the mathematical processes, but when viewed as to their ramifications, tend to suggest the apparently erroneous, or sometimes even the ludicrous. Comparing and differentiating CMS and mainstream research If one were to view CMS vis-à-vis mainstream research, there are broad and glaring differences that exist between them. Above all, mainstream research is objective and scientific, which CMS proponents such as Mingers are ready to contest. In contrast, CMS is subjective, not structured as a whole, and in a sense intuitive. These differences spring from their orientations. Mainstream research views its research subjects as factors to be considered in the studied phenomenon, viewed in a clinical setting and from which isolated, “purist”, relationships are to be drawn. On the contrary, CMS argues that many interrelated considerations figure in the behaviour and actions of subjects in a social setting, considerations that could not be isolated in a clinical approach but which must be viewed within the context of their situations. CMS espouses the view that real-world solutions are needed for real-world problems, and since management science, whether mainstream or critical, needs to arrive at a workable course of action, the individual actors should be assessed with all their complexities. Social systems are multi-faceted, and no viable course of action can be applied were it to treat solely on one or another isolated factor, such as mainstream research would lead to conclude. It is therefore the main weakness of mainstream research – that of relevance and practicality to actual organizational problems – that CMS intends to address. Since the introduction of CMS creates a counterpoint to mainstream research, the future prospects of one against the other is an important issue to undertake in this paper. The future of CMS vis-à-vis mainstream research First Scenario: Ignored Grey develops his first scenario based on the possibility that CMS would “simply proceed in ways which are ignored by the mainstream”. CMS itself may choose to not engage with the mainstream other than differentiate or distinguish itself from the mainstream. The possible reason for this is that CMS may eventually find itself at odds with mainstream research such that engagement would required compromise and incorporation, negating the quality of being “critical” and eventually rendering it “uncritical”. CMS, by its nature, tends to rely on its own networks and resources, essentially limiting itself to a few journals, not because CMS seeks to maintain its purity, but because CMS, by nature, seeks to maintain its criticality over the mainstream. It is noticeable that CMS writings rarely get published or cited in conventional journals. In this regard, Grey gives credit to Dov Eden, 2003 editor of the Academy of Management Journal, who opened the doors to CMS writers, not because he personally espoused the new movement, and even regarded it with scepticism early on, but liberally acknowledges that it “speaks to important issues about the social and political nature of management and management research, and the enmeshment of these with pressing problems such as global inequality, labour abuse and corruption” (Grey, 2007 p. 465). From these words, one may infer that these are some of the qualities of CMS that differentiate it from mainstream research. During his incumbency, Eden issued a challenge to CMS authors to contribute articles to the largely mainstream AMJ, admittedly not because of the substance of their arguments, but because that some of these writers are “highly visible and respected scholars in the Academy” and not just “a group of crackpots) (Eden, 2003, p. 390). This may be begrudgingly indicative of some measure of acceptance and acknowledgment that CMS has a place alongside mainstream investigation. Second Scenario: Engaged The second possibility is for CMS to be “engaged” with the mainstream, in which case there is the possibility of being diluted or compromised, because such engagement means that CMS will have to accept the rules of the mainstream. As such, CMS may be so far compromised as to be absorbed as part of mainstream, and lose its distinction of unconventionality and un-critical. However, it is conceivable that some sort of happy co-existence could be struck between mainstream and CMS which, without each losing its identity, could mean some sort of “softening” in the hardline stance. For example, the establishment of a CMS division within the American Academy of Management has elevated the profile, and thus acceptability, of CMS in the United States. While some CMS advocates observe that this may render the CMS position completely pointless (Grey, 2007 p. 468), other CMS scholars hazard a guess that a happy compromise is indeed possible, to lend some “degree of reputational capital in the form of academic respectability.” (Ibid, p. 467) Their reasoning runs thus: Business schools are in a constant tug-o-war between the academe and business practice, accused of being short of rigour for the former and lacking in relevance for the latter (Engwall, 1992). While mainstream suffers from this dilemma, CMS, by its oppositional stance and plurality of approach, is perceived as cast out of the mold, so to speak; it is thus free from these expectations and thus offers a respectable alternative to the mainstream. In fact, while CMS rarely finds its way into business academic journals, it has however been welcome in many social research journals, establishing a sort of legitimacy. (Grey, 2007 p. 467). Third Scenario: Ascendant Grey’s third possible scenario is that CMS displaces the mainstream and “wins out”. This would be a curious, if not inconceivable, situation, in that CMS and the mainstream have a necessarily symbiotic relationship, such that even if CMS wins, it still loses. It has been likened by Parker (2002, p. 132) to a man whose ambition is to put himself out of a job. In constructing his third scenario, Grey himself is convinced of the unlikelihood of the possible dominance of CMS over mainstream management education. He observes that the will to critique is essentially ”mobile” or shifting even as power itself shifts or is transferred to another. Were CMS to become the new “mainstream” then it will inevitably occur that a new form of critique will emerge, this time critical of CMS. Thus, the scenario can never become reality; critique becomes mainstream and attracts critique. The most realistic prognosis, therefore, lies in the second scenario (if we are not there already), that CMS begins to be accorded a marginal acceptance in the realm of business theory. A mainstream body of research must exist for CMS to exist, not only as a counterbalance but also as a pre-condition (Grey, 2007, p.469). Nor will CMS be ignored, as speculated in the first scenario, for even now CMS is garnering a constantly growing number of followers. As critical research proves itself of greater relevance to practice, it will definitely be accorded some sort of validation as a credible approach to management research. However, by its very nature, it will be always reactionary to and critical of mainstream research. It is believed that a happy balance will be struck in the nature of scenario 2, engagement. Conclusion: The emergence of CMS, while regarded with suspicion and even derision by hardcore mainstream writers, is an inevitable development in the normal course of searching for the truth. Ideas developed and tested through traditional methods of inquiry, when, falling short of the needs of business practice, are felt to be insufficient for the purpose, would tend to spawn alternative methods by which such conclusions can be verified. This would, naturally be, the critical approach to research. At present little progress has been made towards defining the critical methodologies of greatest practical use, and probably better so. Critical theory embraces creativity and freedom of discourse, adjusting methods to be best responsive to the situation currently under consideration. This very freedom to explore, deduce and infer, while introducing a subjectivity less than exact, nevertheless develops a larger picture by which the management problem may be addressed. Furthermore, seldom is an exact answer desirable in business management. More often than not, a trend of inquiry that brings to light all the issues pertaining to the situation’s intricacies would most likely prove more enlightening and helpful to management. As stated by Alvesson et al. (2007, p. 2), “management is too potent in its effects upon the lives of employees, consumers and citizens to be guided by a narrow, instrumental form of rationality.” This is the reason why the critical method particularly benefits management science. That is not to say that mainstream research has no place in it. “CMS has an oppositional and yet at the same time symbiotic relationship with that which it critiques.” (Grey, 2007 p. 464). For all its advantages, a healthy CMS will always work in tandem with healthy mainstream research, for one is meaningless without the other. REFERENCES Alvesson, M., and Willmott, H. (eds.). (1992) Critical Management Studies, Sage Publications, London Clegg, S.R. (1990), Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern World, Sage, London, Gergen, K.J. and Thatchenkery, T.J. (2004) "Organization Science as Social Construction: Postmodern Potentials". The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 40, No. 2, 228-249 Grey, C. (2007). "Possibilities for critical management education and studies". Scandinavian Journal of Management 23 (pp.463-471). Eden, D. (2003). "Critical management studies and the Academy of Management Journal: Challenge and counterchallenge". Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 390–394. Engwall, L. (1992). Mercury meets Minerva. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Hassard, J. (1993), "Postmodernism and organizational analysis: an overview", in Hassard, J., Parker, M. (Eds),Sage, London, Postmodernism and Organizations, pp.1-24. Marcuse, H. (1969). "Repressive tolerance". In R. P. Wolff, B. Moore, & H. Marcuse (Eds.), A critique of pure tolerance (pp. 95–137). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Parker, M. (2002). Against management. Cambridge: Polity. Mingers, J.(1992) "Recent Developments in Critical Management Science". The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Jan., 1992), pp. 1-10. Palgrave Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2583693 Accessed: 17/03/2009 00:40 Read More