“WE ARE A FAMILY” – A CRITICAL ORGANIZATIONAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Abstract

Organizations are arenas where discourses are built and implicated. One of the discourses used in the organizations is the “family” discourse which is realized as “we are a family”. Such an approach aims to construct a meaning that contains not just only pragmatist and rational relations in an organization, but also an illusion of an intense emotional experience. Nature of such a discourse is paradoxical. As an intentional constructed entity organization lacks basic characteristics of a family such as kinship, family bonding and intimate relationships. Therefore, the main assumption of the study is that such a family discourse helps hiding the contradictions and the socio-political structure of the organizations that emerge from the nature-of-organization. Accordingly, the definition of family concept is examined within disciplines of psychology/ sociology and the reality of the family discourse is compared with a critical perspective. This study aims to demonstrate hidden motives that lie beneath the organizational discourses employed by the executives in order to manipulate and manage employees. Such recognition would help to prevent the abuse of organizational power under the name of management.

Keywords

• Critical Management Studies, Organizational Discourse Analysis, Family Metaphor

Kaynakça

1. Ainsworth, Susan & Cox, Julie Wolfram (2003), “Families Divided: Culture and Control in Small
2. Family Business”, Organization Studies, Vol: 24, No: 9, pp. 1463 – 1485.
3. Blommaert, Jan & Bulcaen, Chris (2000), “Critical Discourse Analysis”, Annual Review of
4. Anthropology, Vol: 29, pp. 447 – 466. Boje, David M. (1995), “Stories of the Story-telling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of
5. Disney as Tamara-land”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol: 38, No: 4, pp. 997 – 1035.
6. Britannica Online (2009), Family, http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9109754, [Accessed 2.06.2009]
7. Brotheridge, Celeste M. & Lee, Raymond T. (2006), “We are family: Congruity between organizational and family functioning constructs”, Human Relations, Vol: 59, No: 1 pp. 141 – 161.
8. Burrell, Gibson & Morgan, Gareth (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, London: Heinemann.

9. Casey, Catherine (1999), “Come, Join Our Family: Discipline and Integration in Corporate
10. Organizational Culture”, Human Relations, Vol: 52, No: 2, pp. 155 – 178. Clegg, Stewart & Dunkerley, David (1980), Organization, Class & Control, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
11. Cornelissen, Joep P. (2005), “Beyond Compare: Metaphor in Organization Theory”, Academy of
12. Management Review , Vol: 30, No: 4, pp. 751 - 764. Coser, Rose Laub (1964), The family: Its structures and functions. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
13. Fairclough, Norman (1995), Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. New York: Longman.
14. Foucault, Michel (1979), Discipline and punish: Birth of the prison. New York: Vintage
15. Gabriel, Yiannis (1999), “Beyond Happy Families: A Critical Reevaluation of the Control
16. Resistance-Identity Triangle “, Human Relations, Vol: 52, No: 2, pp. 179 – 203. Gibson, Cristina B. & Zellmer-Bruhn, Mary E. (2001), “Metaphors and meaning: An intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol: 46, No: 2, pp. 274 –
17. Grant, David, Hardy, Cynthia, Oswick, Clifford, Oswick & Putnam, Linda L. (2004), The Sage
18. Handbook of Organizational Discourse, London: Sage. Handel, Michael J. (2002), The Sociology of Organizations, London: Sage.
19. Hardy, Cynthia (2001), “Researching organizational discourse”, International Studies in
20. Management and Organization, Vol: 31, No: 3, pp. 25-47. Hatch, Mary J. & Cunliffe, Ann (2006), Organization Theory, USA: Oxford University Press.
21. Legge, Karen (1999), “Representing People at Work”, Organization, Vol: 6, No: 2, pp. 247 – 264.
22. Levin, Irene (1999), “What Phenomenon is Family?”, Marriage & Family Review, Vol: 28, No: 3, pp. 93 — 104.
23. Levin, Irene & Trost, Jan (1992), “Understanding the Concept of Family”, Family Relations, Vol: , No: 3, pp. 348 – 351.
24. Morgan, Gareth (1980), “Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organization theory”,
25. Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol:25, No: 4, pp. 605 - 622. Murdock, George Peter (1949), Social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
26. Parker, Martin (1998), “Organisation, community and utopia”, Culture and Organization, Vol: 4, No: 1, pp. 71 — 91.
27. Parker, Martin (1995), “Working together, working apart: management culture in a manufacturing firm”, Sociological Review, Vol: 43, No: 3, pp. 518-547.
28. Parsons, Talcott (1955), The American family: Its relations to personality and the social structure, family socialization and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
29. Peters, John F. (1999), “Redefining Western Families”, Marriage and Family Review, Vol: 28, No: 3, pp. 55 – 66.
30. Rahim, M. Afzalur (2001), Managing Conflict in Organizations, Westport: Greenwood Publishing.
31. Robbins, Stephen & Barnwell, Neil (2002), Organisation Theory Concepts and Cases, Australia: Prentice Hall.
32. Scott, W. Richard (1998), Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
33. Settless, Barbara H. (1999), “Definitions of the Family”, Marriage and Family Review, Vol: 28, No: 3, pp. 209 – 224.
34. Smith, Ruth C. & Esienberg, Eric M. (1987), “Conflict at Disneyland: A root-metaphor Analysis”,
35. Communication Monographs, Vol: 54, pp. 367 – 380. Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael (2001), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage.