Summary
The paper challenges the view that the American managerial discourse has progressed from coercive to rational, and ultimately, to normative rhetoric controls. The author challenges that position by reviewing historical evidence which suggests that since 1870, the managerial discourse has progressively alternated between normative and rational rhetorics. The paper argues that the standard theories of ideological change were inadequate to explain the changes and emerging patterns and the timing of each new pattern. Barley and Kunda (1992, p.363) argue in support of the contrary opinion based on a proposed theory that combines material forces and cultural constraints. The argument is that the alterations between normative and rational rhetorics justify the emerging patterns of different waves and different cycles of economic development and contraction (1992, p.369-86).
According to Barley and Kunda (1992, p.363), the rise of large corporations and managerial professionalization, the need to control complex organizations, and the different phases of development justify the argument that managerial discourse needed to evolve into the coercive controlling of the workforce to streamline production. Successive phases of development led to the emergence of the normative approach of controlling the hearts of people to win their minds and ultimately control them. The emergence of five phases emphasizes the argument that managerial discourse was based on industrial betterment, human relations, and organizational culture. Successive managerial systems which emerged were based on the argument that cooperation rather than conflict was a managerial approach which was challenged strongly by the cadre of mechanical and industrial engineers (Barley & Kunda 1992, p.369).
Barley and Kunda (1992, p.369-86) continue to challenge the argument on the dynamic evolution of managerial discourses from the perspective of rational, ultimate, to normative rhetoric controls which were based on emerging views on organizational culture. The systematic growth of management science, the emergence and prominence of operations research as a managerial technique, the emergence of the human relations movement, and the contingency theory separated organizational theory from organizational behavior. That argument broadly illustrated the concept of system rationalization.
Criticism
The author argues strongly that management is a dynamic discourse that has successfully grown through different phases throughout history. According to Barley and Kunda (1992, p.363-94), it is correct that management discourse is influenced by the dynamism in society associated with which is based on different industrial ideologies. In addition, different theories explain the positions held by the researchers who wish to explain the position held at any time in history emerging management discourses and to justify the argument. New ideologies emerge with time to redress the inadequacy of previous ideologies, depending on the industrial phase the ideology is being applied (Abbott 1990, p.43). It is satisfactory to argue that previous managerial ideologies cannot be applied and solve managerial problems and disputes that emerge in modern settings. Barley and Kunda (1992, p.369-94) seem to agree on the position that dynamism in society causes different managerial discourses to address the rising need of each management style. It is agreeable that management discourses cannot be strictly fixed to the three elements of rational, ultimate, and normative rhetoric controls. However, Barley and Kunda (1992, p.363-394) fall short of accepting the theories which explain the management discourses that emerge with time.
In conclusion, the author’s position on management discourses, the argument on supporting theories, and the dynamism are strongly justified.
References
Abbott, A D 1990, ‘Positivism and interpretation in sociology: Lessons for sociologists from the history of stress research, Sociological Forum, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 435-458.
Barley, S R & Kunda, G 1992,’ Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 3 pp. 363-399.