In this section of the course, we will be exploring the interpretive perspective on organizations. You will recall from the first portion of the class that the interpretive point of view is characterized by a subjectivist approach to reality – one that suggests that social reality is not a given but rather is constructed by people (subjects) through their perceptions, interpretations and social interactions. Before starting on the readings for this week, you may want to revisit some of the earlier pieces, in particular the Morgan and Morgan/Smircich articles provided in the course pdf files. Also for a short summary on subjectivism and some useful linkages check this link to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(philosophy)   

Looking at organizations through the interpretive perspective, we aim to discover the social reality constructions that make up the organizations. From the subjectivist point of view, the objective reality of organizations is merely the tip of the iceberg. It is the immediately observable element of the organization but it must be understood as the outcome of underlying constructions and socially shared perceptions and it does not exist independently of those. For instance, an organization may have a vision statement, but we must remember two key things: 1) the vision statement has no meaning and therefore, no reality unless people accept it and believe in it, i.e. the statement itself carries no weight. It is dependent upon people’s acceptance of it and the way in which they perceive it in their day-to-day reality. 2) ultimately, people’s behavior is determined by their construction of reality and not by the “objective” reality itself – this is the voluntaristic conception of ontology: we create our own reality.

Interpretive approaches to organizations are also bound by a regulation perspective in that they assume that cultural constructions are naturally patterned and ordered and cultural analysis seeks to identify the order, pattern and relationships in diverse cultural constructions. Unlike functionalist theory, however, it does not seek to impose or re-structure that order. Also, unlike critical theory, it does not seek to question or critique social constructions. Interpretive theory merely aims to describe the constructs it discovers in a way that is understandable and agreed upon by the subjects it studies. I.e., good knowledge from an interpretive perspective is knowledge that is recognizable by the subjects as in “that is a really accurate description of our organization – you show a really good, insider’s point of view on what we do”.

The readings for this portion of the course include 4 different categories:

1. The text chapter in Morgan provides a bit of background on the cultural perspective, shows how the idea of culture can be applied at different levels (historical, social, organizational and micro), discusses a few of the main constructs, provides some examples of cultural analysis, and explores its strengths and limitations.

2. The selections from Trice and Byer provide our main conceptual framework for this section, presenting a model consisting of core values, cultural forms and externalities.

3. The articles listed provide assorted discussions of the cultural approach and also a few examples of what this looks like in action.

3. The readings from Driskill and Brenton will provide our detailed, step by step approach to doing cultural analysis. The first set of selections describe what we look for and what is being studied. The second set provides instructions on methods and interpretations.

In the first session, we will focus on establishing a clear understanding of the concept of social reality construction.

- To prepare for this, make sure you do the readings of course. In addition, identify some things around you that to you clearly exemplify the idea of social reality construction and show how your construction of these things may vary radically from those around you.

-Also think about the implications of differences in reality construction. Interpretive theory says that shared, collective action is only possible if we share realities and that conflict is the result of differences in reality construction. Identify a longstanding conflict that you have with another person and explain this conflict in terms of differences in social reality construction. If possible, sit down and talk to the person in depth about how they see the issue, making sure to keep your perspective completely out of the picture and out of the discussion.

-Finally, look at your organization and identify at least 2 cultural constructs unique to your organization (for instance, symbols, rituals, etc.).

In the second session we will focus more on doing the cultural analysis itself. Here, you want to take the analysis pieces you began last time and further develop them using the data collection tools described in the readings for the second interpretive session.

The ultimate goal for this section is for you to continue your story analysis but now you will provide a “cultural” twist to your account. If we are to look at your story through the lens of interpretive theory, what do we see that we did not see before?