Introduction
The broader field of management and organisational studies has embraced body-aware or non-verbal research in the last few years. However, the strategic management and the general management fields are reluctant to embrace research that incorporates the body, which has led to them being theorised and viewed as disembodied. As such, this paper analyses the necessity of giving voice to the non-verbal aspect in strategic management through the conceptualisation of the body to ensure the growth of the practice. However, this study is not limited to the living body.
Summary of the article
In this article, Minocha and Stonehouse (2007) explore the role of the body in strategic research and the importance of embracing body-aware research in the field. The authors note that the field of strategic organisation is highly concerned with talk and speech as the means of articulation while disregarding the role of the body in the creation of strategies. Any form of strategizing that does not consider the animalism of the strategist does not embody completeness.
This assertion holds because the body contributes in different ways in the process of the creation of strategies, thus affecting the outcome of the processes. Therefore, the authors are calling for the acknowledgement of the body language input in the strategizing process.
The authors further state that in a bid to appreciate the input of the body in the strategizing process, understanding the composition of the body is important. This goal is achievable only through an in-depth study of the body. According to the article, the body is made up of two elements that include the physical and the sociocultural elements. Therefore, the body goes beyond the physical to include the meaning-made body, the lived body, and the becoming body (Minocha & Stonehouse, 2007). Limitation of the body to the verbal aspect is shallow. According to the authors, strategists note are not talking heads separate from the body and as such, their bodies can sometimes subvert or reinforce their verbal expressions, thus influencing their strategic thinking process and decisions.
In addition, the authors applaud the efforts in the broader field of management and organisation to recognise the role of the body in research. They state that body-based management and organisational scholars have influenced research after realising that work, on organisational aesthetics, should embrace embodiment for it to be practical and complete. To sum up their arguments on the presence of the body in the strategic organisational field, the authors state that the current position remains that the body in this particular field is talking, but absent. This assertion holds because the verbal aspect is the only input that is being recognised and appreciated.
The authors do not just criticise the absence of the body, but they explore several steps that can be taken to ensure that the presence of the body is felt and appreciated in the strategic management field. The steps include understanding how and where the actual strategizing work is done, the skills required in the work of strategizing and organising coupled with how they are acquired. Others include understanding the tools and techniques of organising and strategizing together with how they are used in practice, the organisation of the work of strategizing and organising, and finally the process of communication and consumption of the products of strategizing and organising.
The authors argue that these aspects will help in incorporating the body in strategic organisation. Additionally, the authors state that the best way to ensure that the body is incorporated in strategic and organisation studies is by investigating the role of the body and its impact in the strategy outcome as this aspect will help in understanding the significance of the inclusion of the body.
Critical analysis
One of the critical issues raised by the authors is the limitation of strategic organisation to mere talk and speech as the mode of articulation without telling the other powerful forces that influence the strategic process. This aspect inhibits the realisation of the role of the non-verbal aspect of the body in the formulation of strategies. I concur with the author that strategists are not separating their heads from the body and as such, their bodies can sometimes subvert or reinforce their verbal expressions, thus influencing their strategic thinking process and decisions.
This assertion holds because the same mental faculty that verbalises well-articulated thoughts also influences the body language, and thus it is easier for the body language to alter the thought process of generating the strategies. Therefore, the theorisation of the organisational studies, as the authors posit, is faulty because it fails to recognise the practical influence of the body in the creation and implementation of the strategies. Failing to highlight the powerful techniques, which strategists employ when delivering talks to make their point like the use of tonal variations for emphatic purposes or powerful gestures for convincing purposes, hinders the invaluable insight that explains the creation of the strategic decision.
The authors emphasise the importance non-verbal in strategic management by pointing the increasing body-aware research in the broader management and organisational studies field, which is a pointer that the broader field realises the importance of the body. However, the failure by the authors to include more real life experiences puts the article at the risk of being dismissed as theoretical. Other than citing the inclusion of body research in the broader organisational studies field and the risk of the field of strategic organisation risking being regarded as disembodied, the authors have not given much compelling reasons as to why the field should consider incorporating body-aware research and the dangers of their continued ignorance of body-based research.
Non-verbal communication can make or break the strategizing process even in families. At one time, the family was scheduled to have a vacation abroad. However, two weeks before, the vacation, our grandmother, who lives in another part of the country, fell sick and we had to reschedule our trip to be with grandma. However, the news of cancelling our vacation was not received warmly amongst the family members. We held the view that the vacation had long been planned and it should not be cancelled.
My father convinced us that being with grandma on her bedside was more important than being anywhere else. He noted that we can always have vacations, but we may not have grandma forever. His body language, facial expressions, gestures, and tone of his voice, were in line with what he was saying. We could see passion, commitment, and love in his eyes. By the time he sat down, we were all convinced that we should cancel the vacation.
Conclusion
Organisation scholars who have explored the field of organisation studies have realised that organisation life is embodied. As such, increased attention needs to be given to the role of the body organisation and management studies.
Conceptualisation of a strategy that has failed to recognise the embodiment and physicality of the strategy is wrong. This assertion holds because the body plays a key role in influencing the strategic process and as such, its impact in the process cannot be ignored. For better acknowledgement of the body in its entirety in the strategic process, the study of the non-verbal communication needs to be encouraged.
Reference
Minocha, S., & Stonehouse, G. (2007). Towards a body-aware Strategic Organisation. Strategic Organisation, 5(4), 437-445.