Polemic and Cynicism: A Study in Educational Organizations

Abstract

The case study method was used in this research, which was carried out to reveal the relations and common areas between polemic and cynicism within the framework of educational organizations. The study group of the research consists of five teachers who were selected through criterion sampling, who worked for public schools and had experienced various case studies. The data obtained through semi-structured interview questions, subjected to descriptive analysis, coded and brought together under various categories and themes. Considering the findings obtained in line with the opinions of the teachers who are the subject of the cases, the polemicist attitude was determined to consist of conservative, otherizing, subject, and toxic sub-themes and the cynical attitude to consist of passive, being seen as the other, and criticizing sub-themes. At the same time, observations revealed that polemicist and cynical tendencies are common in the codes of seeing oneself/the other one as capable, mutual distrust and resistance. The results obtained show that polemicist attitudes that come to life in the leader or administrator in educational organizations cause the development of cynical tendencies in the eyes of teachers and other personnel.

Keywords

• hierarchical attitude
• conflict
• resistance
• favoritism
• ideology
• personalizing

References

1. Adams, W. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Practical program evaluation (4th ed., pp. 492–496). Jossey-bass. Doi: 10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
2. Akman, G. (2013). Sağlık çalışanlarının örgütsel ve genel sinizm düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Hastane ve Sağlık Kuruluşlarında Yönetim Bilim Dalı, İstanbul.
3. Bewes, T. (1997). Cynicism and Postmodernity. New York: Verso.
4. Chaloupka, W. (1999). Everybody Knows: Cynicism in America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
5. Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Crewe, J. (2004). Polemic be Ethical? A Response to Michel Foucault. in Polemic: Critical or Uncritical. Gallop, J. (ED.) In Series: Essays From the English Institute (135-154 pp.). New York: Routledge.
7. Dean Jr, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management review, 23(2), 341-352.
8. Derrida, J. (2020). Konukseverlik Üstüne, (çev: Sümer, A.) İstanbul. Metis Yayınları.

9. Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2004). Egocentric ethics. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000027408.72713.45.
10. Evans, W. R., Davis, W. D., & Neely, A. (2021). The role of organizational cynicism and conscientiousness in the relationship between ethical leadership and deviance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 33(1), 49-68.
11. Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In: N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 301–316), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Foucault, M. (2014). Özne ve İktidar- Seçme Yazılar 2 (çev.: Ergüden, I. & Akınhay, O.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
13. Foucault, M. (1998) Polemics, Politics and Problematizations. P. Rabinow (ed.) In Essential Works of Foucault (381-390 pp.) Vol. 1 "Ethics". The New Press
14. Gürses, İ. (2002). Dogmatik zihnin bazı özellikleri. Uludağ Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1).183-192
15. Haynes, F., & Kunt, A. S. (2002). Eğitimde Etik (çev.: Akbaş, S. K.). İstanbul, Ayrıntı Yayınları.
16. Johnson NJ, Klee T. Passive-Aggressive Behavior and Leadership Styles in Organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 2007;14(2):130-142. doi:10.1177/1071791907308044
17. Jones, C., Ten Bos, R., & Parker, M. (2005). For Business Ethics, New York: Routledge.
18. Karfakis, N., & Kokkinidis, G. (2011). Rethinking cynicism: Parrhesiastic practices in contemporary workplaces. Culture and Organization, 17(4), 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2011.590309.
19. Kart, M. E. (2015). Örgütsel Sinizm. İstanbul: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
20. Kahn, M. A. (2014). Organizational cynicism and employee turnover intention: Evidence from banking sector in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 8(1), 30-41.
21. Kennedy, K. (1999). Cynic rhetoric: The ethics and tactics of resistance. Rhetoric Review, 18(1), 26-45. DOI: 10.1080/07350199909359254
22. Kosmola, K., & Richards, J. (2009, July). Re-visiting employee cynicism: On decentrement of the subject via work blogging. In 6th International Critical Management Studies Conference, Warwick Business School, Warwick University.
23. Laks, A. (2016). The Continuation of Philosophy by Other Means?. S. Weisser and N. Thaler (eds.), In Strategies of Polemics in Greek and Roman Philosophy (16-31 pp.). Brill Leiden: Boston
24. Laursen, J. C. (2009). Cynicism Then and Now. Iris: European Journal of Philosophy & Public Debate, 1(2), 469-482.
25. Lemaitre, C. & Noriega, P. (2015). Making sense out of polemics. Conference: Twelfth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems At: İstanbul.
26. Merrıam, S. B. (2018). Nitel Araştırma: Desen ve Uygulama İçin Bir Rehber (Çev. S. Turan). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
27. Merriam-webster (2020). Polemic. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polemic (erişim tarihi: 03.05.2021).
28. Meyerson, D. E. (1990). Uncovering socially undesirable emotions: Experiences of ambiguity in organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 33(3), 296-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764290033003004
29. Mikkonen, I., Moisander, J., & Fırat, A. F. (2011). Cynical identity projects as consumer resistance–the Scrooge as a social critic?. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 14(1), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2011.541163.
30. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. New York: Sage Publications.
31. Navia, L. E. (1996). Classical Cynicism: A Critical Study (Vol. 58). West Post: Greenwood Publishing Group.
32. Patton, M. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Pelltier, K. L. (2011). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric. Leadership, 6(4), 373-389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010379308
34. Rehan, M., Iqbal, M., Fatima, A., Nawabl, S. (2017). Organizational cynicism and its relationship with employee’s performance in teaching hospitals of Pakistan. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(3), 1–6. DOI: 10.4172/2162-6359.1000413
35. Sabir, İ., Hussain, S., Majid, M, B. & Rehman, A. U. (2020) Impact of narcissistic personality disorder on cognitive organizational cynicism with mediating role of psychological capital in selected hospitals of Punjab Pakistan. future Business Journal, 6(1), 29. DOI:10.1186/s43093-020-00035-8
36. Sagadin, J. (1991). Razprave iz pedagoške metodologije. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete.
37. Siega, P. R. & Sponholz, L. (2014). The Language of Discrimination: The Textual Tools of Polemic, in The Fallaci Case. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288493754_THE_LANGUAGE_OF_DISCRIMINATION_THE_TEXTUAL_TOOLS_OF_POLEMIC_IN_THE_FALLACI_CASE_A_LINGUAGEM_DA_DISCRIMINACAO_AS_FERRAMENTAS_TEXTUAIS_DE_UMA_POLEMICA_NO_CASO_FALLACI Sing, N., Sengupta, S., & Dev, S. (2018). Toxic leadership: The most menacing form of leadership. Dark Sides of Organizational Behavior and Leadership, 147-164.
38. Sloterdijk, P., Eldred, M., & Adelson, L. A. (1984). Cynicism: the twilight of false consciousness. New German Critique, (33), 190-206.
39. Starman, A. B. (2013). The case study as a type of qualitative research. Journal Of Contemporary Educational Studies, (1), 28-43.
40. Türkeri, M. (2019). Etik Kuramları, İstanbul: Lotus.
41. Zagórska, W. (2019). Between Narcissism and Egocentrism: Self-centeredness in Emerging Adulthood. Conference: Between narcissism and entitlement: self-enhancement in a cross-cultural perspective, April 4-6, 2018, Warsaw. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.17527.88486