Levi-Strauss says that people think via semiotic processes such as analogy. For example, they use relationships among animals to understand relationships among kin groups, or among types of cooking. More generally, well-understood relationships are used as metaphors for less understood relationships. I believe that two fundamental relationships used for thinking are sex and age, as these are the fundamental bases for social differentiation (the only universal ones).
Two meta-relationships (relations of relations) are employed: metonymy, and metaphor.
Metaphor is signification via similarity or analogy: the relationship between supervisor and subordinate is like the relationship between father and son or mother and daughter. "The ship plowed the sea".
Metonymy is where the part stands in for the whole. It is fundamentally signification via juxtaposition and contiguity. Examples of metonymy: "the suits", the brains, hands, HQ, the office, Wall Street, skirts, "All I have to offer is bood, sweat, and tears." (Technically, some of these are synecdoche, like Wall Street, but the distinction is not important).
A crown signifies a royalty because of metonymy. But a margarine that uses a crown for a logo signifies quality by metaphor: this margarine is to other margarines what royalty are to other persons. Smoke signifies fire by metonymy, but the "smoking gun" of lawyers is (usually) a metaphor.
See Barley's semiotics pieces ("the codes of the dead", 1983, Urban Life; "Semiotics and culture", 1983, ASQ) for more information.
Humans readily see opposites. Given the color "white" people recognize "black" as its opposite. When we label skin color as white and black, we set ourselves up to contrast the races. It seems "natural" that if the colors are opposites, so are the races.
Given night, they recognize day as the opposite. Given east, there is west. Up - down. In - out. Us -- Them. Nature -- Culture (nurture). This does not mean that we see everything in binary. For example, we may contrast land with sea and with air: a trichotomy. But dichotomies are far more common in people's minds. And of course any trichotomy can be constructed from a pair of dichotomies. Red light (stop) vs other lights (go); Green light (safe) vs other lights (danger). Therefore, yellow is not stop and not safe, which leaves go+danger = caution.
Via analogies, people use dichotomies to think with. For example, if they associate black with evil, then they will tend to associate the opposite of black (white) with the opposite of evil (good). This creates a kind of calculus:
This is similar to how we navigate streets when we think a city is laid out as a grid. For example, we think "comm ave crosses Gloucester, gloucester is parallel to berkeley, and boylston is parallel to comm ave, so gloucester crosses boylston".
We can also construct chains of binary oppositions:
Such chains act as a form of mental "derivation" of meaning. A distinction in one realm (research methods) is transformed via a chain of analogical reasoning into a distinction in another realm. Persuasive speeches often have this essential structure. A politician for example, compares herself to her opponent. She says of herself that she is for "compassion for the disadvantaged", leaving the opposite to be associated with the opponent.
The culture of organizational theorists is particularly susceptible to levi-straussian analysis. Here is a summary and some excerpts from a paper given at a recent conference by Tom Hench. He starts by comparing the newtonian view of the physical world with the nonlinear systems view:
|newtonian||done to them||hierarchical||plan||lead||organize||control||top-down|
|non-linear||done with them||heterarchical||experiment||serve||self-organize||learn||bottom-up|
|newtonian||mechanical action||pregiven world||extrinsic forces||world of matter||independent atoms|
|non-linear||biological growth||enacted world||self-referencing||world of information||interdependent networks|
Formal organizations are relatively new in human history (say, 10,000 years). To cope with them, people probably tranferred concepts from other domains.
Hierarchical relationships founded on parent/child?
How do you feel about the chairman?
Line/staff founded on spousal relations?
Human resource (personnel department) professionals tend to be women. Line managers tend to be men. Both take care of help "bring-up" employees. But in general, the HR dept is more gentle, and is charged with protecting the employee from management abuses -- unfairness, harassment, etc.
Changing organizational forms:
The notion of value-added:
|homeopathic magic||functional org||paradigm||metaphor||harmony||equivalence||grid|
|contagious magic||product org||syntagm||metonymy||melody||cohesion||group|
Age is like promotion, stages,
Traditional Sex differences in US:
|men||line||technical core||scientific management||task||outer|
|women||staff||people jobs||human relations||needs||inner|
Like hemlines: there is a cognitive dimension with two poles, so we move from one to the other
One common and important objective in qualitative data analysis is discovering (exposing, for some people) the folk theories underlying behavior. That is, cultural schemas.
Of course, when the culture is our own, we often have difficulty distinguishing theories from "facts". Here is a quotation from Charles Cooley, who is reflecting a classic bit of folk theorizing:
"What you know about a man consists in part of flashes of vision as to what he would do in particular situations, how he would look, speak, move; it is by such flashes that you judge whether he is brave or a coward, hasty or deliberate, honest or false, kind or cruel..."
Personalities and personality traits are theories that we use to make sense of (explain) behavior, especially verbal behavior.
One thing that is interesting to look at is how much of academic thinking is based on ancient elements of folk culture. Often what is thought to be a discovery about something out there (e.g. organizations, or leadership), is actually a discovery (really, an articulation) of something in the macro-culture within which researchers are embedded. Possible examples:
When your Intro to OB textbook discusses schools of thought, you will find theories oriented towards the tasks/technical aspects of organizations and theories oriented toward the human/relational aspects, and theories trying to bridge the gap. (Barley says we are in the middle of a relational-dominated wave right now: 15 years from now it will be task dominated. but in every age there are contrarians). When you get to the chapter on leadership, it says that there are two kinds of leaders, social and task. When you read about motivation, you find Hertzberg's distinguishing between hygiene factors (pay, security, working conditions, benefits, policies and practices, etc.) and motivators (feelings). When you read about teams, you hear that group development proceeds on two dimensions: task activity (the job) and group process (interpersonal). Roles within teams are either task-oriented (brainstorming) or maintenance roles (managing cohesion, warmth) In decision making, there are rational perspectives versus garbage can and bounded perspectives, as well as cognitive decision making styles which are either left hemisphere (logical) or right hemisphere (relational). In the power chapter you find there are formal (authority, position) and informal (charisma, network) sources of power. Even within organizational structures, there mechanistic ones and organic ones.
And in the world at large, did you know that men build systems while women build relationships? Men are hierarchical while women are ...
My question is: do all these phenomena happen to break down along similar lines, or is it that we can't help but apply the same lens to everything we see?
Here's an idea. All human societies have a division of labor/behavior based on sex and age. there are hunter-gatherer groups that make no other distinctions. Suppose there are real and enduring differences between people based on sex and age (or, they are culturally determined but they have been in place since homo erectus times so they are totally ingrained). These differences are then applied to everything. This kind of metaphorical, analogical thinking seems fundamental to people. It is how totemism works. The differences between the fundamental things (ages and sexes) become tools to think with. When we think about something new, like organizations, we apply our tools and "see" that there are two kinds of managers, task and social. When we look at our lives, we see that there is both work and family, professional/personal, etc.
So what effect does age have? The age tools provide us with developmental and stage theories. Group development moves from forming to storming to norming to performing. Products and organizations and careers all have life cycles. etc etc.
Transformation is like getting older.
Analysis of the MDS picture of traits (from Burton):