Researching the possible applicability of management techniques arising from a post modernist perspective
By Mr. Michael Hammond
Paper presented as part of a module on the Doctor of Education Degree
in Leadership and management at the University of Lincoln
ABSTRACT
This paper considers of management techniques arising from a theoretical post modernist perspective, within the Art and Design faculty within a West Midlands College and also a philosophy department within a West Midlands University. The paper also seeks to define the philosophies behind post modernism in art, politics and philosophy to determine the potential transfer of concepts of post modernism in to a management perspective. The primary research for this paper was carried out through open ended detailed questionnaires in an interpretative paradigm [Cohen and Manion (1994)]with academic staff / managers at both the College and semi -structured interviews with staff at the University, who were subject specialists in the fields of fine arts, 3D design and philosophy; and this is then placed in context with a literature review which utilises the writings of the current quality “gurus” and management thinkers.
The Need For “Bonkers” Organisations.
It is argued that the general concepts of post-modernism have been part of management guru thought for some years, as Handy (1995) points out:
“George Bernard Shaw once observed that all progress depends on the unreasonable man. His argument was that the reasonable man adapts himself to the world, while the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself, therefore for any change of consequence we must look to the unreasonable man, or, I must add to the unreasonable woman. In that sense we are entering an Age of unreason when the future in so many areas, is there to be shaped, by us and for us, a time when the only prediction that will hold true is that no predictions will hold true, a time therefore for bold imaginings in private life as well as public, for thinking the unlikely and doing the unreasonable. [Handy (1995,p4)].
Handy (1995) may be perceived as somewhat eccentric in his prophecies about the future of society and the way that it will operate in a post millennium era. However it is argued that management consultants and gurus generally are now propagating a more dysfunctional message. A good early example of this can be seen in the writings of Tom Peters (1992), a management “guru” from the USA, he states:
“Add up fickle and fashion, the need for bonkers organisations lots of tries and the matchless power of the markets, and what do you have? Among other things a clarion call for a new imagery. In short today’s organisational images stink. Not just those that derive from the military (“kick ass and take names”) and Pyramids (heavy, steep, immobile), but even the new network, spider web, calder mobile. These modern notions are a mighty step forward, but they still miss the core idea of tomorrows surviving corporation: dynamism.” [Peters (1992,p15)].
The message for all organisations from both Handy (1995), and Peters (1992) is that survival in this new age which they saw about to dawn means fundamental change of both practice, but more importantly the attitudes that underpin the practice. The moribund claim to historical justification, and the modernist concept of the grand design as the reason for doing something will no longer suffice, as the fall from grace of many of the fortune 500 companies, which Peters and Waterman (1982) had held up as models of virtue some ten years earlier.
Thus a new model is declared to be needed, which is not ransomed to the past, and that can encapsulate the uncertainty and chaos foretold by Handy (1995) and Peters (1992). Usher and Edwards (1994) also point to the value of using of post modern thought within education, and the politics that surround education as a possible way of managing education within the chaos.
Research Questions And Paradigm
The research questions considered within this paper are:
- What is the meaning of postmodernism?
- What is the applicability of postmodernism to educational leadership and management within an Art and Design faculty in a FE College, and a philosophy department in a University?
- How can postmodernism be applied to management practice?
The research paradigm within which this paper is situated is based within an interpretative paradigm, as it is based on non-statistical small-scale individual research: [see Cohen and Manion (1994)]. The questionnaires, although traditionally from a positivistic paradigm were designed to ask open ended questions, thus it is argued keeping the research within an interpretative paradigm as described by Cohen and Manion (1994). The questionnaire was used with the manager from the FE College. The interviews were of the semi structured type defined by Hitchcock and Hughes (1991), as incorporating both structured questions, and the ability for the interviewee to develop the interview in their own way. The interviewees were the Head of the Philosophy Department at a West Midlands University, and another academic member of staff from the philosophy department. The use of Art and Design managers by the researcher was deliberate, as there was an assumption made that as both artists and managers they should be familiar with the concept of postmodernism. If only through their art, as the postmodernist movement has its roots within an artistic paradigm: [see Sarup (1993)].
The researcher sought to triangulate the data received from the questionnaire against the data received from the interviews, and the data from the literature sources.
What Is Postmodernism?
For philosophers, it would appear that a finite definition of post modernism is illusory. Norris (1995) states that postmodernism is a reflection of philosophy as a holder of “Truth- telling discourse”. Blake (1996) points to post modernism as a repudiation of the notion of validity of itself or anything else. In an interview with the head of philosophy at a west midlands university the question of what is postmodernism was discussed in relation to the father [see Sarup (1993)] of postmodernism Jean Francois Lyotard. He said of Lyotard.
“ He pointed out that it is the will to reduce reason to sets of rules deeply rooted in old fashioned metaphysics and in today’s technoscientism, that leads to irrationalism. Lyotard opposed the will to subjugate to doctrine that, which claims to possess the final truth about it. He showed how that led and could only ever lead to devastation: the overt terrorism of Auschwitz, the Gulag, and year zero.”
Sarup (1993) appears to concur with this viewof Lyotard, he states:
“Attacked the legitimating myths of the modern age (the grand narratives), the progressive liberation of humanity through science, and the idea that philosophy can restore unity to learning and develop universally valid knowledge for humanity.” [Sarup (1993,p132)].
Sarup (1993) points to a shift to emphasising reality in images. Thus, Postmodernism turns time and history into a series of perpetual presents, which cannot be put together to tell a story or create the truth telling discourse referred to by Norris (1995). Sarup (1993) concludes:
“With the development of postmodernism in recent years, there has been a move to textualize everything: history, philosophy, jurisprudence, sociology, and other disciplines are treated as so many optional kinds of writing or discourses.” [Sarup (1992,p132)].
The denial by postmodernism of the concept of a grand narrative, and the philosophical possibility of an overreaching rational philosophy being based on the accumulated knowledge of the past sets it is argued postmodernism against socio-political philosophies such as Marxism. Callinicos (1989) argues that postmodernism is a conservative ideology, which has gained strength during the 1980’s as a result of political policies pursued by Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher in the USA and UK, respectively and also the general decline of the working class movement in western societies.
The postmodernist ethos Callinicos (1989) also believes has benefited from the overconsumptionist consumer credit driven society of the 1980’s coupled with a general decline in and disillusionment with politics and politicians. This view is supported by Norris (1985), who also criticises Lyotard for producing a “conservative” ideology; he states.
“The postmodernist condition as Lyotard interprets it thus seems to share the essential characteristics of all conservative ideology from Burke to the current New Right. It rests that is to say on the idea that prejudice is so deeply built into our traditions of thought, that no amount of rational criticism can hope to dislodge it. Any serious thinking about culture and society will have to acknowledge the fact that such enquiries have meaning only within the context of a certain informing tradition.” [Norris (1985,p8)].
However, Callinicos (1989) and Sarup (1993) both point to the roots of postmodernism beginning in the artistic community, and so this paper now considers the effect of post-modern ideologies on the artistic world.
Postmodernism Within Artistic Expression
Garlik (1987) defines the artistic effects of postmodernism as a multidimensional and slippery space a game without rules, where one part of the creation has no relationship with anything else at all, and all meaning becomes detachable, dissociated and decontextualized. These created images then slide past one another without linking up to form an incoherent sequence, which are unable to fix meaning.
When asked what their views were on postmodernism the art and design managers gave a mixture of responses to the question. The 3D design manager stated that postmodernism was:
“Pastiche, Disneyland, eclecticism and Parody. I think that central to postmodernist theory is uncertainty contrasted to modernist certainty and design dogma.”
The other art and design managers were fine arts specialists and they all somewhat interestingly referred to postmodernism through architectural analogies. One of the heads of division stated:
“If there is a general principle that can be said to characterise post modern architecture, it is the conscious ruination of style and the cannibalisation of form, as thought no value, either traditional or otherwise can withstand for long the tendency of the production/consumption cycle to reduce every civic institution to some kind of consumerism and to undermine every traditional quality.”
The view of postmodernism by this fine artist is very like the view postulated by Norris (1985). The capitalist production/consumption cycle, which many on the traditional political left would argue is controlled by “blind” market forces, which is despoiling and destroying everything, and creating a society where the price of everything, but the value of nothing is known. It is this interpretation of postmodernism by Callinicos (1989) and his desire to defend Marx (1867), and the Marxist grand plan, that makes Callinicos (1989) take such objection to Postmodernism.
The faculty head saw postmodernism as a lack of confidence in the traditional answers to fundamental questions about life, and quintessentially about art. He stated:
“Postmodernism is a dismissal of the mores that were sacrosanct to modernism and its overconfidence in the ability of an individual to draw upon this from a variety of sources to create original work without the need to feel that any movement or idealism needs to be dismissed per se.”
So then postmodernism although it cannot be accurately defined might be seen as a rejection of an historical interpretation (grand design) in history, which results from a loss of confidence in the traditional explanations and concepts that have held sway for a period of time. There is a rejection of any subsequent attempt to define this further as postmodernism rejects the joining together or relationship forming between one part of the picture and any of the others. Postmodernism then is the philosophy of the creative individual rather than the group, and therefore it could be argued fitted very well with the protracted individualism of the 1980’s. However the question is, how can postmodernist ideas be related to management, to improve organisational (and individual) performance.
What is the applicability of postmodernism to educational leadership and management within an art and design faculty in a FE college, and a philosophy department in a university?
When asked how a micro organisation (in this case the west midlands university) might be managed along post modern lines, a philosophy lecturer at a west midlands college concluded that this would be achieved by:
“Freeing up and establishing the individual staff members creativity.”
When asked to define creativity the head of division of 3D design stated that creativity was:
“ Personal expression through media that communicates through a variety of sources.”
A middle manager in art also related creativity to a personal expression, he stated:
“Individual freedom of constructive expression based on material skill and a sense of history.”
The use of the word history was interesting as it would it is argued suggest a modernist outlook, if it is accepted that a tenant of postmodernism is a rejection of a historical paradigm as an explanation of multiple presents.
When however creativity is placed within the context of management literature, then from the writings of Tom Peters for example [see Peters (1982), (1985), (1987), (1992)] creativity is at the heart of a deconstructional and chaotic environment which is favoured by Peters (1992) and other management gurus. Peters (1992) argues that personal creativity can therefore only be best created in a chaotic environment, with a minimum of outside influences. The curriculum manager in her interview picked up this point, he stated that creativity was:
“The organisation of Chaos, which is the attempt to define order and regulate the unordered chaotic world.”
However the Curriculum manager saw himself not as a follower of postmodernism, he stated:
“My sense of creativity is the antithesis of the post modern theory. In that sense I am a modernist and anticipate the neo-modernist reawakening.”
The faculty head (another fine artist) defined creativity as original thinking. He then unpacked this view further. He said:
“Where do you get good ideas from? – A common question from art students. Real original thinking can come only from a vacuum. But a vacuum produces nothing! So it must be a synthesis of other ideas/concepts. So the more ideas or source material you absorb, the more likely you might come up with a new truth. New truth demands a dismissal of the old hence most movements are reactionary. Over analysis will lead to clarifying the references which kills creativity or clarifies the sources which is the same thing."
As long ago as 1982, Peters (1982) was concerned that modern management failed to stimulate creativity within organisations, and this failure to accept the development of projects or ideas which were and are removed from the normality of the organisations day to day business operations may stifle performance in the long run. Peters (1982) states:
“Most corporations fail to tolerate the creative fanatic who has been the driving force behind most major innovations. Innovations, being far removed from the mainstream of the business show little promise in the early stages of development. Moreover, the champion is obnoxious, impatient, egotistic, and perhaps a bit irrational in organisational terms. As a consequence he is not hired. If hired, he is not promoted or rewarded. He is regarded as “not a serious person”, “embarrassing” or “disruptive.” [Peters (1982,p206)].
Peters (1985) develops his thoughts on this process in his subsequent book, “A Passion For Excellence”, where he encourages the development of what he defines as Skunk work on the outer edges of the company, to develop and produce these ideas. He states:
“It is a messy world, we hope to demonstrate that. If it is a messy world, the only way to proceed is by constant experimentation. Don’t just stand their do something. If constant experimentation is the only antidote to a messy world then we need experiments or champions (skunks). And if we need champions, we must realise that the most effective environment for champions is almost always an abundance of skunk works, that small off line bands of mavericks that is the hallmark of innovative organisations. [Peters (1985,p116)].
In “Thriving On Chaos” Peters (1987) develops this theme further, by putting the emphasis on management to act as “Executive Champions”, by providing the environment where individual champions can thrive. Peters (1987) invokes the manager to:
“Become what I call an executive champion, a nurturer, protector, facilitator, and interference runner for as many energetic champions as you can induce to sally forth.” [Peters (1987,p249)]
In his latest book “Liberation Management”, Peters (1992) steers companies towards producing “productive anarchy” in a bid to stimulate the creative process and keep companies at the forefront of their markets. He states:
“Getting renegades on the payroll is not enough. Protecting them from the bureaucrats (and make no mistake every firm with more than one employee has bureaucrats) becomes a prime job for managers at all levels. Renegades especially those in pursuit of visionary new product dreams, break a lot of china, irritate a lot of people. [Peters (1992,p597)].
So desperate is Peters (1992) to encourage protection of the anarchist, that he recommends a very radical proposal of segregation for these newly termed loonies, he states:
“One of best reasons to open an office 5000 miles from headquarters, even for a very young company with 15 people on the payroll, is to implant a few loonies far enough away from home, so that they can avoid the infection of conventional head office wisdom. If distant enough, the merry little band will (1) be influenced automatically by other ideas/cultures and (2) more likely develop a healthy disregard for company policy.” [Peters (1992,p597)].
Though not couched in similar terms to those of Peters (1992), Pascale and Athos (1986) point to the use by Japanese management of creativity particularly from the front line operatives in quality and product improvement and an entrepreneurial spirit. An example cited by these authors is that of Matsushita (an electronics company) which encouraged autonomy and entrepreneurial spirit while controlling planning, through six month operating plans. This process is common in other Japanese companies as well. Pascale and Athos (1986) state:
“Many Japanese firms have suggestion programs and most view them as vital to success. Matsushita not only rewards suggestions but also maintains statistics on the number and quality of suggestions from each division. These are viewed as excellent measures of employee morale.” (Pascale and Athos (1986,p56)).