Derision and Management

Abstract

While many studies have enlighten several rhetorical and linguistic structures of managerial discourses in organizations, few have analysed from a Lacanian standpoint the impact of these linguistic structures upon the subjectivity of the people concerned. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that many modern management techniques, resulting from the hybrid combination of communication and instrumental rationality paradigms, generate specific recurrent structures of languaging in organizations. These hybrid structures generate what I call here homo managerialis and are similar to the concept of derision as it has been expounded by Denis Vasse in a psychoanalytical context. Derision, in Vasse's psychoanalytical perspective, is a violent way to address to someone which starts with openness and ends up by closeness. It severs one's link with desire, confidence in life, makes work a pain, generates false sociability. This similarity between the structure of modern management techniques and derision is demonstrated through the analysis of three archetypal situations. Finally, based upon Vasse's specific post-Lacanian psychoanalytic anthropology which lends itself to the analysis of derision and from M. Henry's phenomenology of life, this paper will suggest a new understanding of human being and reason which is the basis for a new understanding of organizing which prevents derision.

The Role of Institutional Partnerships, External Funding and Empathy in the Development of Negative Leadership Behaviour

“…This lack of empathy was in part driven by individuals pursuing their own agendas and partly by the requirements of the FB and the unclear organisational structure of the WISE (in de facto terms). These pressures when combined with the lack of empathy led to negative leadership behaviours (Lazar, 2003;Fay, 2008;Pelzer, 2005;Sims, 2005) and hence violent innocence (Vince and Mazen, 2014). This was already being recognised by the WISE staff in this early phase, although for their own personal self-interest (i.e.…”

“…The growth of violent innocence within the organisation was typified by the board's perception of the original CEO, who they blamed for many of the problems (see the quote below). The board clearly sought to subjugate the CEO (Bollas, 1993) and were sometimes derisory in their behaviour towards her (Fay, 2008). In particular, the reportable data required by the Funding Body was seen as the CEO's responsibility, and whilst she must take some of the blame for this [research by Pearce (2006) has pointed out that this is the responsibility of a social enterprise CEO], the lack of direction as to whether the core mission was delivering a funded project or achieving sustainability must rest with the board as the strategic decision-makers.…”

“…Such dependence positions the concept of violent innocence in the psycho-social realm, in which emotions and behaviours become crucial in the growth of unequal power relations and the continued subjugation of subordinates (Vince and Mazen, 2014). Prior research has identified that such violence has many specific forms that are based in negative human emotions and actions such as hatred, derision, contempt and indignation (Lazar, 2003;Fay, 2008;Pelzer, 2005;Sims, 2005). These perspectives however, ignore the role that positive emotions can play in defining the workplace, and how their absence can also result in negative leadership behaviours.…”

“…It is proposed that this lack of regular and 'real' personal contact only exacerbated the lack of empathy within the WISE between the Board members (and the CEO and staff), which exacerbated the growing problems in the partnership (Hourdequin, 2012). This emotional detachment contributed to the increase in negative leadership behaviours and emotions such as hatred, derision, contempt and indignation (Lazar, 2003;Fay, 2008;Pelzer, 2005;Sims, 2005), which would 'bubble to the surface' between some board members in the late phase.…”

“…In addition, whilst the development of 'violent innocence' within an organisation has been predicated on negative human emotions and behaviours (Lazar, 2003;Fay, 2008;Pelzer, 2005;Sims, 2005), this paper suggests that it is also a lack of positive emotions, namely empathy and shared intentionality (Hourdequin, 2012) that also promote such negative leadership behaviour. Furthermore, the paper seeks to move away from the overtly individualised approach to explaining the development of violent innocence proposed by Vince and Mazen (2014), in which individual leaders create organisational structures to promote their authority and encourage obedience, by exploring how organisational structures and funding streams also create the need for individual leaders to behave in such a way.…”