Search results

Recognizes the link between rhetoric and organizational outcomes in organizational theory. Suggests that it is a link which could also be developed in organizational change management; and that selected literary texts could provide a valid learning resource for exploring the role of root metaphors in organizational culture and in management development. Literary artists filter “real life” through a personal, but sensitively attuned conduit; so their “findings” and “conclusions” provide a challenging alternative to the traditional case study. If, for example, literary texts suggest that root metaphors in organizational culture influence action, then it would follow that management initiative to change a root metaphor could lead to change in action outcomes.

The purpose of the paper is to argue that an enriched understanding of texts would enable more informed and responsible management practice. The authors present an approach to the analysis of management texts that enjoys, rather than contests, multivocality with the aim of making our approach to defamiliarising texts an accessible change management tool.

Working with a reader‐response methodology we provide comment on, and analysis of, a popular management book, Kevin Roberts' Lovemarks. The authors context a response to this text in a discussion of commodity fetishism and deconstructed management theory texts. The interpretation of the subject text highlights its rhetorical suasion and pulls buried meaning into view.

The authors demonstrate that rhetorical analysis and satirical play, a mode of defamiliarisation that is employed in their own reading and incorporated into their classroom praxis, enables managers to better understand and control their own sense‐making. The authors argue that where their enriched understandings challenge embedded assumptions, changed management practices are enabled.

The authors offer their own construction of a Lovemark text, a satirical echo of the Roberts original, as an example of the distancing effect of humorous textual play.

Heard the one about the company which took its staff thousands of miles for a picnic? It is not a joke; it really happened in New Zealand when Dick Hubbard, owner and managing director of breakfast cereal manufacturer Hubbard Foods Ltd flew his entire 102‐man workforce to Western Samoa for a tenth birthday picnic during the Queen’s Birthday Week. In this article, Walker and Monin use Burke’s “dramatistic pentad” as a framework to analyze the event in terms of action, location, the star (Hubbard himself), his part in the action and the purpose, and argue that it might be used to analyze other organizational events.

Uses Kenneth Burke’s “dramatistic pentad” as an analytical framework to analyse a company event that in New Zealand became symbolic of social responsibility in action. Presents the event in which the staff of an Auckland food processing operation was flown to Western Samoa for a weekend “picnic”. Explores the act – what happened; the scene the physical, geographic and cultural milieu of the action; the agent – managing director Dick Hubbard’s individual identity and the role he played out in terms of the action; the agency – the means by which Hubbard was enabled to accomplish this action, and his role in initiating, approving and funding the staff picnic; and finally, the purpose – the intended effect of the action and a consideration of perceived outcomes. Considers the usefulness of the dramatistic pentad to other organisational contexts. Concludes that it provides a useful model to guide the analysis of diverse organisational texts.

Worker perceptions of their emotional response to a supervisor, during an incident identified as of critical significance, are described and analyzed in this study. We invited 14 participants, aged from 39 to 56 years to share their stories with us in semi-structured interviews. The organizations represented by the workers’ stories included private business government and educational institutions. A grounded-theory approach was adopted to allow key themes to emerge (Locke, 1996). We encouraged participants to allow “buried perspectives” (Hochschild, 1983) to surface: as they interpreted the relational effects of “what happened” in retrospective sense making. As they explored their perceptions of these interactions, participants revealed the complex and disturbing array of emotions and frustrations that lay beneath the veneer of rationality and control they chose to present during the incident. Felt emotions, whether expressed, repressed or edited, were overwhelmingly negative; and awareness of power issues emerged as a key driver in the “feeling rules” (Hochschild, 1983) workers perceived as needing to be observed. Worker tension was seen to be exacerbated by adherence to these rules because “the rules” conflicted with their own personal values and beliefs. Emotional dissonance resulted from this. The role of the organizational community within which workers coped with their experience, and subsequent emotional response, was also explored.

As reported in Volume 1 of Research on Emotions in Organizations (Ashkanasy, Zerbe, & Härtel, 2005), the chapters in this volume are drawn from the best contributions to the 2004 International Conference on Emotion and Organizational Life held at Birkbeck College, London, complemented by additional, invited chapters. (This biannual conference has come to be known as the “Emonet” conference, after the listserv of members.) Previous edited volumes (Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Zerbe, 2000; Ashkanasy, Zerbe, & Härtel, 2002; Härtel, Zerbe, & Ashkanasy, 2004) were published every two years following the Emonet conference. With the birth of this annual Elsevier series came the opportunity for greater focus in the theme of each volume, and for greater scope for invited contributions. This volume contains eight chapters selected from conference contributions for their quality, interest, and appropriateness to the theme of this volume, as well as four invited chapters. We again acknowledge in particular the assistance of the conference paper reviewers (see the appendix). In the year of publication of this volume the 2006 Emonet conference will be held in Atlanta, USA and will be followed by Volumes 3 and 4 of Research on Emotions in Organizations. Readers interested in learning more about the conferences or the Emonet list should check the Emonet website http://www.uq.edu.au/emonet/.

The purpose of this article is to present and revisit the role of rhetoric and narratives in management research and practice.

The authors revisit the insights from previous work on the role of rhetoric and narratives in management research and introduce new perspectives based on the original contributions included in this special issue.

There is an ongoing need to stress the importance of narrative and rhetorical perspectives in management research, specifically for exploring the managing of meanings, the coaching of virtues and the mediating of rhetoric.

The paper revisits and provides new insights on the role of rhetoric and narratives in management research and emphasizes the interrelationship between both, specifically by focusing on the conceptual framework of Kenneth Burke, whose work can be situated at the intersection of rhetoric and narrative.

Céleste M. Brotheridge is a professor of organizational behaviour with the Départment d'organisation et ressources humaines in the École des sciences de la gestion at the Université du Québec à Montréal. She completed her PhD in organizational behavior and research methods at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Brotheridge publishes and conducts research primarily in the areas of burnout, emotions, and bullying in the workplace. She is the chair of the Organizational Behaviour Division of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada and a member of the editorial boards of the International Journal of Stress Management and the Journal of Managerial Psychology.

This introduction seeks to provide a brief background to the notion that there are generational differences at work and to introduce the papers included in this special issue of the Journal of Managerial Psychology.

The current context concerning generational differences at work is briefly outlined followed by a description of the core theory underpinning the notion of generational cohorts. Criticisms of this theoretical premise are provided before a brief outline is given to each article in the special issue.

There is evidence for changes in personality profiles across generations, and for differences in attitudes towards work and careers. However, effect sizes tend not to be large, and some findings are inconsistent with popular stereotypes regarding generational differences. Little support was found for differences in work values or motivation.

Contrary to popular hype concerning generational differences at work, managerial time may be better spent considering employee needs relating to age (maturity), life‐cycle and career stage differences than developing generationally specific management policies and practices. Significant methodological problems remain in generational research.

The papers facilitate a critical understanding of the challenges facing generational research and its limitations, and provide a litmus test against which popular stereotypes can be compared.