Busch-Jensen, Peter

English

This paper focuses on conflicts as a useful and meaningful aspect of work and organizational theory, and I will discuss power relations as a phenomenon that relates to our handling of conflicts. Conflicts can be perceived negatively, as something to be avoided. However conflicts also offers important inclusive social elements that are important as well as appropriate to be aware of, not least because conflicts in a sense is an inevitable element of any form of social co-operation and practice. I will therefore argue that the problem is not the conflicts, but rather the tendency to consider conflicts as problems.This paper focuses on conflicts as a useful and meaningful aspect of work and organizational theory, and I will discuss power relations as a phenomenon that relates to our handling of conflicts. Conflicts can be perceived negatively, as something to be avoided. However conflicts also offers important inclusive social elements that are important as well as appropriate to be aware of, not least because conflicts in a sense is an inevitable element of any form of social co-operation and practice. I will therefore argue that the problem is not the conflicts, but rather the tendency to consider conflicts as problems

Roskilde Universitet

IntroductionThis presentation focuses on conflicts as a useful and meaningful aspect of work and organizational theory, and I will discuss power relations as a phenomenon that relates to our handling of conflicts. Conflicts can be perceived negatively, as something to be avoided. However conflicts also offers important inclusive social elements that are important as well as appropriate to be aware of, not least because conflicts in a sense is an inevitable element of any form of social co-operation and practice (Axel 2002, 2005). I will therefore argue that the problem is not the conflicts, but rather the tendency to consider conflicts as problems. (Eugene Matusov – on comprehension) The overall aim of my talk is three-fold. 1)	Firstly I wish to present a certain take on how to analyse power relations from a situated practice perspective.2)	Secondly I wish to present a concept of conflictual collaboration as a useful analytical crowbar into the production of power relations in a modern workplace, using a case study as an example.3)	Thirdly I hope to point to some overall procedural characteristics of the everyday-life production of power; and then identify a tendency I think the described processes points to.But first I need to say a few think about my theoretical perspective.I draw on what I usually call a practice-research perspective. Practice-research can be said to fall within what is commonly known as social practice theory. The word 'Practice Research' however refers – the next 20 minutes anyway - to a specific train of thought in this field, an approach that draws on situated learning theory (mainly Lave and Wenger, 1991) and Danish-German critical psychology (Holzkamp 1983 2013, Dreier 2008). These perspectives bring slightly different ideas to the table, but both have situated practice as its primary research object. My aim is not to present a recipe for the study of situated practice, but rather to present a way of organizing oneself and ponder when confronted with social phenomena that invite exploration. When I talk about situated practice, I talk about people's actions in specific situations, but also about these actions as part of broader organizational and societal practice-structures. The word situated therefore refers not only to what is going on in the immediate situation, but also to how “what is going on here” relates to what is going on elsewhere and thus to broader organizational and societal contexts. Actions are embedded in what I call practice, which again relates to wider arrangements of practices and practice-structures. Organizational conflicts arise from dilemmas in social collaborations in and across these complex relationships. At least that is my approach today.From a practice research perspective, social reality and phenomena such as organizations are comprised of clusters of practices put together by chains of action, in which different people are involved on the basis of different types of jobs and different types of responsibilities, and contributions. For example, the graphic designers, copy-writers, and key account managers in the advertising company that I will talk more about later, often had no problem cooperating on a shared campaign projects, but would still experience them very differently and have different perspectives on their basics. Just as a teacher, a parent, a school manager and a psychologist might perceive the same schoolchild and the concept of ”good teaching” very differently. They are all involved and engaged in the same "thing", but in different situations, on different conditions and with different things at stake. To investigate whose perspective and knowledge are valid and relevant, and who’s perspectives are not, is therefore - in one sense - absurd. Since, in a way, all the participants 'perspectives' present us with valid and reasoned knowledge on the practice in question. Thus you might say that they all contribute to our understanding of the subject matter: the complex connections and differentiated meanings that comprise their shared practice. From what we here call 'the common case perspective' - for example 'the good advertising job - the disagreeing parties are not "randomly disagreeing". On a basic level, it is in fact their disagreements that bind them together and express the social connectedness and fabric of their shared engagement and practice. Examining and linking the different perspectives in and on a certain practice, therefore provides each participant, and in fact all of us, with an opportunity to expand our understanding of the practice in question, by taking us on a cross-contextual journey through the different positions, perspectives and contributions to this practice.  At least that is my argument.The premise of this argument is that all knowledge stem from some form of engagement in the world, and some experiences that result from it (Højholt 2005). We must therefore understand all knowledge as knowledge that 'speaks' from a particular standpoint in the world. That is: neither from ''nowhere' nor from everywhere', but always from “somewhere”, from a particular engagement in the context. To my mind, there is no method or form of experience from which certain participants can create knowledge about our reality that is superior and therefore overrules the knowledge of others. That is why it makes sense to conceptualize practice as a form of conflictual collaboration. And it is also the reason why this concept, of conflictual collaboration, invites us to ask certain kinds of questions regarding how we organize ourselves in relation to each other. Fx: what part of the practices we are engaged in, are actually visible to us, accessible and possible to get knowledge off through our everyday work-activities? What relationships, necessities, and dependencies do our daily activities make us aware of? Who appears as concrete colleagues and whose actions make sense to us? And what relationships seem a bit more 'abstract' and hard to understand? The reason such questions are important is, that in a sense we are part of each other's conditions. First of all because the ways we arrange ourselves also structure our own as well other's ability to know and do something. But also because the extent to which this is clear to us, is also reflected in our actions. The concept of 'conflictual collaboration' take the described understand of practice as its starting point. It describes conflicts as an inherent aspect of social interaction, that is, that collaboration entails conflicts and conflicts entails collaboration. Thus, it does not ignore the fact, pointed out by Marx, that a possible consequence of divisions of labour is social inequality and alienation (Marx 1944). But neither does it ignore, that divisions of labour at the same time can allow for increased solidarity and social cohesion, since increasing division of labor also creates dependencies that connect community members to each other (Durkheim, 1893). Human societies are comprised of social collaboration. Therefore, the question is not whether we cooperate or not or whether divisions of labor are a good or a bad thing. The concept of 'conflictual collaboration' poses these questions differently. It addresses how we, by our social collaboration and arrangements - structure our own and others possibilities for action. Do we emphasize social separation or connectedness? Do we act together or against each other? To my mind such question relate directly to the issue of power. This becomes clear to us, as soon as we take into account how our ability to act in a competent fashion often relates directly to our ability to consider what other participants are doing, compared to what we are doing and what the consequences of our actions may have for others. Uncoordinated work often proves costly and resource intensive, not to mention full of unpleasant surprises, extra work and unintended conflicts and problems. Good and smart solutions are therefore socially coordinated and socially 'thoughtful'. For the simple reason that coordinated actions, informed by the differences, are actions based on more nuanced understanding of the reality it question. All else being equal, greater insight into the differences between perspectives encourage greater social imagination, a broader overview of what is possible and a wider understanding of the meaning of our own and other peoples actions. That is why we need to conceptualize social reality as a concrete but differentiated reality. If not for other reasons, then because it afford an open and curious exploration of the differences in organizations and at the same time presents such exploration as a form of reality check. A reality tjeck that remind us that individual abilities, are rarely purely individual, but also relate to the specific conditions, that are available to us and on which we are expected to develop skills and understandings. Of course, from an abstract point of view, one can acquire knowledge about anything and everything and therefore consider all lack of knowledge as a lack of personal ability. However, from a practice research perspective, any idea that people's commitment and knowledge, is a reflection of isolated individual abilities, ignores the significant impact that our everyday life and practices have on our knowledge, skills and commitments. The relevant question in organizations is simply not how much the different participants know or do not know, but rather with whom they know and what they are encouraged to know from their particular standpoint. It is my experience, it is the attention to these dynamics that shape participants ability to provide good and feasible solutions to problems, and to collaborate in engaged and inclusive ways. An empirical exampleThe remaining minutes I will draw on data from a qualitative study of everyday life in a large Danish advertising agency (Busch-Jensen, 2011). My description will draw on the arguments just presented. But to summarize, these include, that organizations should not be studied as harmonious, but conflictual, and that communities of practice in organizations should not be studied in the singular but in the plural, in order to also examine how the participants with their actions shape each others possibilities. The latter question relate directly to the issue of power. Power not only as restrictive, but also enabling. In short: not a "thing" that some have and others don’t. But as something we are all entangled in, have a share in, and act on. The relevant question is therefore not whether power is exercised or not. The relevant question is how it is exercised: If we are coordinating our complex chains of actions in a mutually inclusive or exclusionary manner. If we are developing our connectedness, or rather developing social differences, borders and distance?I examined these processes in a modern advertising company characterized by a strong focus on organizational flexibility, employee empowerment, and value-based management. All the participants seemed to value community and equal opportunity. However during my two years with the company, and contrary to my original believes, I witnessed a growing polarization of the participants, a growing division of the staff into dispensable and indispensable; escorted by an increasing unequal distributions of income, status, job security and ownership. However, the really interesting part was how the participants continued to refer to the company as a harmonious frontrunner company focused on equality and employee involvement. And continued also to describe these developments as inevitable, natural, and appropriate. I set out to understand how these opposing tendencies came about and were held together by the daily activities of the participants If we keep in mind, that it does not make sense, on a fundamental ontological level, to distinguish between macro and micro actors, such as institutions versus families, organizations versus people, the global versus the local, since ultimately we are still talking about connections between people and situated practices. If we keep this in mind, then the production of 'size' and ‘consensus’ becomes an obvious object of research and a fundamental aspect of what power is about. If social practices are inherently complex and conflictual, how is it possible to turn one particular perspective on this practice into a general perspective on this practice? How does it become possible for single perspectives and actors to grow in organizations, both in importance, capacity and visibility? There are certainly many ways to answer these questions. My description merely describes how these processes unfolded in the advertising company. That said, these processes seemed to show more general features and elements. I will try to outline some of them and in conclusion briefly relate them to broader sociotal tendencies.1)	A first element consisted of repeated problematizations. Specific participants identified a something as particularly problematic and important, and then described this feature in a manner, so that others also saw it as their problem. The same participant at the same time claimed to hold the means to solve it. The problem in question was described by the management to revolve a need for greater organizational flexibility. From the description of this problem sprung a general sense of vulnerability, from which any failure or hesitation to act appeared to have potential disastrous consequences for everyone. The solution, presented by the management, was therefore a common recognition that the agency now found itself in a permanent state of emergency. A condition that called on all participants' commitment to any suggested change and restructuring.2)	Another element consisted of regular invitations to everyone to engage themselves in these developments, to see them as full of opportunities and to come up with suggestions on how they best be implemented. This process moved through dynamics of social inclusion and mobilization, but simultaneously enhanced the influence of managers and core staff. Since, after all, any proposed solutions had to be coordinated with the visions and needs of clients, that only they were able to define. Hence they were constantly involved and consulted as ever more indispensable advisors.3)	As a third element the proces resulted in a number of informal partnerships and alliances – inside and outside the company. The many alliances revealed exciting new opportunities for some, but at the same time made ​​it difficult for others to figure out the actual chains of command and communication. Thus the proces resulted in a growing divergence between core employees and "foot soldiers", a sharpened sense of "center" and "periphery".The end result was a comprehensive social 'mobilization' from which a small group of people, using only a few tools such as regular briefings, employee interviews, and new intelligent processing systems, could 'speak for the many', and have a wide influence and visibility in the organization, As well-intentioned leaders, with an 'authority' to define the common reality. Of course there is of nothing wrong with coordinating activities to specific visions and strategies. However, we still need to ask how this is organised. Is it organized on an understanding and interest in the differences; on an understanding of the organisational reality as a differentiated reality?  Or is it organized on a distinct perspective that is papered over the organizational disagreements and differences? In this company, the latter mostly seemed to be the case. Thus the everyday work processes gradually presented a new line of division in the company. A social division between, on the one hand, management and a few core employees whos primary object of work was the social relations, and for whom the described processes therefore involved exciting new opportunities, easier access to information, and expanded influence and indispensability. And on the other hand the participants, whose object of work revolved more specific tasks of production, be it either graphic design, texts or internetbanners; food, cleaning or taking care of reception. Here the described processes often meant less oversight, less space for contemplation, less influence and job-security. The described line of division seemed to form around what we might call a occupational professional perspective and a system-professional perspective. There were of course a range of other conflicts and divisions in play. However to my mind non as significant as this one. And non so generally recognizable. It seems this division is outlined these days in almost all western institutions: between, on the one hand, a growing layers of leaders, managers, process consultants and administrators who organize, rationalize and streamline social connections in an ever-increasing pace. And on the other hand the people who usually stand in front of the blackboard in the school, with ostomy bag at the hospital and cardboard boxes in the supermarket.	To finish off, I think the point I want to make is this: It is by using our imagination that we are able to place our actions in sequential understandings and broader connections of peoples and practices - into and out of social connection and back and forth in time. However our imagination requires real experiences to work with, since our ability to transcend our immediate 'reality' do not spring from some mystical domain of fantasy. The ways in which we connect and cooperate are therefore of great importance to our ways of acting in organizations, and our ability to come up with good solutions that incorporate knowledge of how our actions effects others.In the advertising agency the linkages between the various communities of practice appeared neither equally nor mutually illuminated. However this was certainly not due to a failure on the part of the occupational professionals to think beyond their own perspective. Rather the opposite tended to be the problem.If organizations want to take responsibility for broader social issues such as social inequality and marginalization, and if we want them to be innovative and so called 'learning organizations', it seems to me, that we should encourage curiosity across organizational contexts, - not only towards management. The point is not to settle differences; the point is rather to explore them. I relation to this I think it is important to stress that organizational conflicts are inevitable, but not necessarily the problem. If we consider them resources of learning, they might equally be part of the solution. Thank you!PAGE  1

Conflictual Collaboration: -a situated-practice perspective on social power-relations

https://rucforsk.ruc.dk/ws/files/40418990/Konference_paper1.doc

Conflictual Collaboration: -a situated-practice perspective on social power-relations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Roskilde Universitet