voffset 4> everydayconversations

Everyday conversations

Concepts and Transformation 6:3 (2001), 295–315.

issn 1384–6639 / e-issn 1569–9692 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

<TARGET "cun" DOCINFO

AUTHOR "Ann L. Cunliffe"

TITLE "Everyday conversations"

SUBJECT "CAT, Volume 6:3"

KEYWORDS "Social constructionism, dialogic research, social poetics"

SIZE HEIGHT "220"

WIDTH "150"

VOFFSET "4">

A social poetics of managing

Ann L. Cunliffe

My position in this paper is that talk is the primary medium of making senseof and constructing our social and organizational realities. In particular, Isuggest we need to incorporate the discourse of everyday conversations intocritical management theory because it opens up conventional research tonew possibilities. Social poetics offers a way of exploring how, in the flow ofour embodied dialogical activity, we link ourselves to our surroundings andmake sense of our experience. As a form of inquiry, social poetics elevateseveryday, imaginative ways of talking; for example, metaphors, storytellingand instructive statements. I explore how the practice of social poetics influ-ences our research, how it may help us understand how managers live theirorganizational lives, and why it is important to Critical Management Studies.I incorporate extracts from research conversations with managers to illus-trate this approach.

Keywords: Social constructionism, dialogic research, social poetics

Introduction

I want to talk about some of the very strange characteristics of our everydaylives together, of the conversational spaces we open up between us, and of theequally strange dialogical realities they create — strange because we are veryunused to trying to talk about the nature of our own practical doings, sayingsand understandings from within the course of our own doing of them.(Shotter, 1997: p. 345)

<LINK "cun-r27">

Management is often viewed as a formal, rational activity made more effectiveby the application of techniques and models grounded in objective, theoreticaldiscourse. I suggest this form of discourse fails to capture the complex, intertex-

296 Ann L. Cunliffe

tual, emerging nature of living and that, on a daily basis, we make sense of whatis happening around us in the flow of our (managers, researchers, ‘ordinary’people …) everyday dialogical activity. Managing may therefore be seen as aneveryday activity and, as such, much of the interaction that takes place draws oneveryday rather than theoretical ways of talking. We therefore need to incorporatethe discourse of everyday living into management theory — to explore howmanagers construct a sense of and shape their organizational landscapes in theireveryday conversations. Social poetics offers a way of doing this.

Drawing on social constructionist suppositions, and particularly the workof Shotter (1993, 1996, 1998), I suggest our social world and sense of self are

<LINK "cun-r27">

constructed between us in our relational activities; specifically, in “oral encoun-ter and reciprocal speech” (Shotter, 1993: p. 29). From this perspective,

<LINK "cun-r27">

organizations may be seen as relational landscapes continually shifting from theimaginary to the imagined in interactive moments and management as aresponsive, embodied and dialogical activity of managing. This approach is notsimply another theory or method but has major implications for research andtheory development because it relies on a different set of ontological andepistemological commitments to conventional modernist approaches. Socialconstructionism elevates knowledge as an ontological project; how we come toknow the world is intertwined with our sense of being and acting. Social poeticsmay be seen as part of the “linguistic turn” (Watson, 1995, p. 807) in social

<LINK "cun-r29">

studies; that rhetoric and poetics are not distinct from reality but involved inthe process of reality and knowledge construction. This form of knowledge isbased on a relational-responsive understanding that emerges in daily, relationalactivities and conversations.

Social poetics offers a way of exploring how we may make sense of ourexperience and construct a shared sense of place in our everyday conversations.As a ‘method’ of analysis, it is very different from many conventional researchconversations which focus on analyzing the content of conversation, languagestructures or processes as a means of identifying the realities of others, (e.g.,conversational analysis and discourse analyses). The analysis then forms thebasis for generating theoretical ways of talking about reality. In this paper I offera different perspective, a way of thinking about how we connect with and relateto our surroundings within our conversations. This is based on Wittgenstein’sclaim that words have meaning “only in the stream of life” (1981: no. 173), andtherefore we need to study our dialogical practices, our taken-for-grantedutterances and how they may move us to talk or act in different ways. Socialpoetics offers a way of studying these everyday ways of talking, specifically, how

Everyday conversations 297

we use metaphors, storytelling and instructive statements to connect withothers. These forms of talk have a powerful rhetorical and embodied impactbecause they are evocative and imaginative. I incorporate extracts from myresearch conversations with managers to illustrate this approach.

I believe the notion of social poetics is central to Critical ManagementStudies (CMS) in two main ways. First, both conventional and critical concep-tualizations of reality and management have tended to ignore the everydaylifeworld of managers by focusing on formalized roles, activities, and competen-cies or, in the case of CMS, on philosophical, ideological, and intellectualcritiques of management. Social constructionism emphasizes the symmetricaland constructed nature of our experience, reframes managing as an ongoingrhetorical practice, and therefore opens up new possibilities for research —those situated in lived experience. Second, an understanding of social poeticscan help both managers and researchers gain critical insights into their ownpractices and their impact on knowledge, relationships and everyday life. Indoing so, we may develop a reflexive awareness of our ordinary, everydayinteraction and its potential for moving others to talk or act in different ways —a crucial aspect of everyday management practice.

Why social poetics? Articulating and making sense of our world

The aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of theirsimplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to notice something — because it isalways before one’s eyes.) (Wittgenstein 1951: no. 50, cited in Pollner 1987: ix)

<LINK "cun-r30"><LINK "cun-r24">

I suggest there are two very different types of discourse that influence ourmethods of inquiry and our ways of relating to those around us: academ-ic/technicist discourse and everyday conversational discourse. The former isrooted in the denotative language game (Lyotard 1984:65) in which statements

<LINK "cun-r19">

are given credence based on their capacity to describe the ‘real’ world inobjective, accurate and theoretical terms. Discourse is seen as a means ofexpressing inner thoughts or describing reality and getting agreement on howto deal with this reality. Our forms of inquiry therefore involve talking aboutthe activities of others from an outside, expert stance in which we used boundedtheoretical ways of talking about past events; a “monologic way of talking”(Shotter 1998:86). In contrast, everyday conversational discourse is the mo-

<LINK "cun-r27">

ment-to-moment, responsive, non-theoretical way of talking occurring betweenus. Much of this discourse involves reacting to others in spontaneous and often

298 Ann L. Cunliffe

embodied ways. In other words, we react to our feelings and ‘sense’ of themoment as we engage with others in rhetorical ways. I suggest this form ofdiscourse constitutes most of our daily interaction, in organizational and othercontexts, and that we take it for granted because it is so familiar. I proposemanagers rely upon everyday rather than theoretical ways of talking to makesense of, act, and negotiate their way through organizational life, and that thisform of discourse should therefore be the focus of our inquiry. If we accept ourunderstanding of experience is rooted in our everyday discourse, then studyingour dialogical practices offers rich potential for understanding, articulating andliving our lives in more deliberate ways; for “knowing how, knowing how tolive, knowing how to listen” (Lyotard 1984:18). This form of knowledge takes

<LINK "cun-r19">

us beyond denotative statements to knowing how to relate with others in morereflexive, responsive and critical ways.

The dialogical perspective draws on the work of discursive psychologists,(e.g. Bakhtin 1984; Wittgenstein 1953, 1980) and is closely related to social


constructionism (Hatch and Ehrlich 1998; Shotter 1996) which presupposes


talk is the primary means of constructing and making sense of our socialrealities. In other words, we are rhetorical beings (Watson 1994:24) and

<LINK "cun-r29">

responsive discourse is the means by which we connect with and shape oursurroundings. However, the notion of rhetoric needs some explanation becausethe ‘method’ I am proposing encompasses a broader stance. Höpfl (1995)

<LINK "cun-r17">

distinguishes between rhetoric (speaking with intent and direction) and poetics(the expression of lived experience, the play of words and sounds, and emotion-al experience). I am proposing our everyday dialogical practices incorporateboth and therefore our study of those practices should also. So, how may weexplore these dialogical practices and their impact? How may we grasp aspectsof our everyday conversations, those embodied utterances and reactions whichWittgenstein says are hidden because they are so familiar? How might we makesense of what is happening when our conversations are in-the-moment andcreated between us? Bakhtin (1984:183) suggests our dialogical relationships

<LINK "cun-r2">

cannot be reduced to logic, categorization or theoretical forms of talk. Insteadwe need to focus on the dialogic and relational moments in which we try toshape our surroundings. What ‘methods’, then, may we use to try to grasp thesefeatures of our talk and their impact?

A number of authors have explored conversations of managers (e.g.Fairclough 1993; Hatch and Ehrlich 1998; Schön 1983; Tulin 1997; Watson

<LINK "cun-r11"><LINK "cun-r16"><LINK "cun-r26"><LINK "cun-r28"><LINK "cun-r29">

1994), often with the purpose of discovering intentions, meaning, or strategies.However, many have focused on language structures or analyzed dialogue from


the outside. For example, Fairclough develops a social theory of discourse inwhich his definition of discourse as a constitutive social practice provides auseful basis for studying practice. However, he sees discourse as “a mode ofrepresentation” (1993:63) and his analysis focuses on the structural aspects(vocabulary, grammar etc.) of conversation and text rather than relational andembodied aspects. Even within the linguistic turn, it is difficult to move awayfrom a monological analysis. Watson’s study of rhetoric in managerial dialogue(1995) is the author’s hunt for tropes within the dialogue of others, even thoughhe incorporates his own rhetorical thinking into the process. Both of theseexamples are attempts to bridge two systems of meaning in which one languagegame is decoded and then recoded in the form of another in order to make itmeaningful. How may we access the living moments between people in whichwe create possibilities for moving on in our lives — and recognize our ownplace in the constructing process?

I propose that the ‘method’ of Social Poetics1 draws attention to ways oftalking in which we may become aware of the “arresting moments” (Shotter

<LINK "cun-r27">

1996:294) that generate an embodied response. In such moments, we connectin dialogue and some kind of shared significance and further talk and actionmay emerge. This connecting does not necessarily involve establishing acommon meaning or understanding between participants. Indeed, from adialogical perspective, talk is often seen as contestual (Shotter 1993; Watson


1995) because it is always at the boundaries; my voice/your voice, my ‘scenic’sense/your scenic sense, what I am struck by/what you are struck by, and so on.How we navigate these boundaries in our conversations and begin to constructsome kind of shared sense is an important question for both researchers andmanagers, both of whom are engaged in meaning creation. By becoming awareof the impact of our dialogical practices on meaning-making, we can developmore reflexive conversational practices.

Arresting moments are unique to the moment of conversation and dependupon the context, mood, reactions, feelings etc. in that moment. It is thereforedifficult to communicate this momentary experience to the reader. However, Isuggest social poetics draws attention to moments and types of dialogue inwhich meaning was/is created — and in doing so, the reader may interpret theexperience in similar or different ways. Poetic methods involve imaginativerather than representational forms of talk and include metaphors, storytelling,irony, and instructive statements. Drawing on Wittgenstein’s later work,Shotter (1996) summarizes his ‘poetic methods’ as:

<LINK "cun-r27">

300 Ann L. Cunliffe

the use of metaphors, images, analogies …the use of instructive forms of talk to move others, such as: ‘do this’, ‘lookat that’, ‘listen’, ‘finish this by tomorrow’ …the use of forms of talk to reveal possibilities or new ways of connecting;‘imagine …’, ‘suppose we look at it like this …’, ‘think what would happenif …?’ …the use of gestures; pointing, shrugging, thumping the desk as we speak …comparing different language games as a means of situating ourselves.

Wittgenstein calls these “reminders” (1953: no. 89) because they direct ourattention to taken-for-granted and responsive aspects of everyday forms of talk.For example, gestural talk carries with it an unspoken assumption that the otherperson will respond — if we hold our hand out and say ‘hello’ we expect theother person to shake hands, we do not have to be told to do so. These “remind-ers” or linguistic resources are a crucial part of social poetics, which focuses onhow we are struck by connections, how we relate to others, coordinate ouractivities, and make sense of experience — not by applying theoretical conceptsbut by grasping a sense of how talk itself may move us. Therefore, if we are todevelop more critical, reflexive and responsive approaches to managing andresearching, an understanding of the poetics of everyday language can help usgrasp these possibilities within our conversations.

As a research method, social poetics focuses on practical moment-to-moment conversation and how talk both creates and draws attention to featuresand possibilities in our social landscape. In this way, social poetics can helpmanagers and researchers become more reflexively aware2 of their ordinary,everyday interaction, the constitutive and persuasive nature of our dialogue,and to articulate practice in more meaningful ways. This means making sensein practical moment-to-moment ways rather than conceptual ones and offersa springboard for developing a social poetics of managing. I will outline andexplore the ‘method’ of social poetics before outlining its potential contributionto Critical Management Studies.

Everyday conversations and social poetics: A ‘method’ for articulatingthe practice of managing and researching

Instead of turning immediately, as we have in the past, to a study of howindividuals come to know the objects and entities in the world around them,


we must begin in quite a different way: we must study how, by interweavingour talk with our other actions and activities, we can first develop and sustainbetween us different, particular ways of relating ourselves to each other.(Shotter, 1996: p. 299).

<LINK "cun-r27">

My interest in social poetics as a form of inquiry developed as I read aboutdiscursive psychology, social constructionism and postmodernism. At the sametime, as part of a study of managers as practical authors (Cunliffe 2001) I was

<LINK "cun-r8">

taping conversations with managers. As I listened, I began to hear the evocativeways in which the managers talked about their experience. The conversationscontained poetic language; stories, metaphors, images and phrases that gave mea sense of the manager’s experience. This form of language was very powerfulin making connections between myself and the managers; I could hear it, see itand feel it in our back and forth responses. Much of what I had initially takenfor granted in our dialogue (the non-theoretical, the not-directly-relevant-to-my-model talk) had most impact because it struck me and stayed in mymemory. I began to question my own assumptions about the nature of knowl-edge and research, and understand that my conversations with managers werenot about accessing his/her reality, but offered a way of constructing a sharedsense of the manager’s experience. This began a number of arresting momentsfor me as I connected the idea of dialogic interaction with the lived experience ofthe research conversations.

In the remainder of the paper I use social poetics to explore the dialogicalpractices in my conversations with managers; to illustrate how poetic oreveryday forms of talk are crucial in creating a shared sense of experience; andto explore the possibilities this raises for becoming more reflexive practitioners.3

I talk of these conversations in three main ways: first, to illustrate our dialogicalpractices; second, to explore how connections were made in the conversationbetween myself and the manager; and thirdly, using a monological form of talkI draw on notions within CMS to unsettle some conventional ideas aboutmanagement. Within the first and second ways, I draw out aspects of poetics bycalling attention to moments in the conversation that resonated with me andseemed to offer connective possibilities. This approach of working from withinthe conversation itself is my attempt to ‘talk the talk’ and be consistent with thedialogical perspective I am advocating. Of course, I accept that the reader isgetting only one participant’s sense of the conversation and that these linguisticor poetic ‘ways’ can be used in different contexts, and their meaning and effectwill be specific to that particular conversational moment.

What I want to do here is explore the possibilities of what may be rather

302 Ann L. Cunliffe

than actualities or true observations of what is. From this perspective, theresearch conversation itself is a dialogical practice; a process of jointly con-structing impressions rather than a description of reality. My purpose is tohighlight how we may use social poetics to understand how we constructmeaning in our everyday talk. In doing so, social poetics can both utilize andcontribute to CMS by drawing on a critically reflexive stance to extend its scopefrom an analytical perspective to a practical one. In doing so, we may becomemore aware of taken-for-granted ways of talking and their impact on construct-ing organizational ‘realities’ and knowledge.

Metaphors: Creating a sense through the ‘other’

There is something strange about language and communication: Although inpractice, we use language everyday, and manage not to mislead each othermost of the time, if someone asks us how we do it, we are nonplused. We can’tseem to ‘see’, i.e., to say explicitly, how it works. (Shotter 1994:1).

<LINK "cun-r27">

From a social constructionist perspective, language is neither representationalnor literal, but creative and metaphorical. Reality takes on the characteristics ofimages created by language itself and therefore language, our experience andknowledge of the world become inextricably linked. Metaphors can be a keypart of the linguistic creativity of the constructing process in contrast toscientific or technicist discourse which treats them as “vague frills” (Ortony

<LINK "cun-r21">

1993:2). I suggest metaphors can be potent rhetorical devices because they cancreate vivid images, immediate reactions and embodied responses which maylead to those arresting moments in which possibilities arise for constructingshared significances. We tend to use them extensively in our everyday conversa-tions (Watson, 1995, p. 812).

<LINK "cun-r29">

In assessing why they may be potent dialogical practices, it is necessary tomake a distinction between metaphor and metonymy and discuss some keyideas about their use. Although this issue has generated much debate amongstrhetoricians, the debate itself is peripheral to this paper and therefore I offer asimple distinction: metaphors involve the comparison of two conceptualdomains whereas metonymy involves connecting in one conceptual domain(Gibbs 1993:258). Czarniawska (1997:9) elaborates this notion by saying that

<LINK "cun-r13">

metaphor involves a comparison of like and unlike whereas metonymy is moreconcerned with how the part and whole hang together. For example, organiza-tions are often referred to as ‘lean, mean machines’ — a metaphor because one


is comparing characteristics of objects from two different domains; the socialand mechanical. The phrase ‘the bottom line’ is metonymy because it lies withinthe organizational domain; the bottom profit/loss line of an organization’sbalance sheet. Both can be seen as illustrative devices, however whereas meta-phors create an impact through a comparison of seemingly unrelated contexts,metonymy involves understanding one aspect within a whole and within asimilar context.

Authors studying the use ofmetaphors have taken different approaches andI summarize these briefly as a basis for locating my own. Ortony (1993:4)

<LINK "cun-r21">

classifies these into macroscopic approaches, which are concerned with theimpact of metaphors as world views, and microscopic approaches, which focuson their use in language. The macroscopic approach is more typical of mono-logical, theoretical discourse in thatmetaphors are seen as ways of perceiving theworld or conceptual tools for reframing those perceptions. For example,Goffman’s use of the theatrical metaphor to illustrate social processes, in whichwe are actors performing a role as if on stage, is one of the most well known.Individuals and teams follow scripts or pre-established patterns of action(Goffman 1959:14), and performance occurs on a consensual basis, with both

<LINK "cun-r15">

actors and audience being involved in a common definition and collaborativemaintenance of the situation.Within thismetaphor, amanager plays his/her rolein a stable, regulative environment inwhich performances “will tend to incorpo-rate and exemplify the officially credited values of society” (ibid. 45) and of theorganization in which they take place. This metaphor draws on the assumptionwe are socialized into a way of acting through a process of regulation andcollaboration — an important distinction to the approach I am suggesting.

The macroscopic approach also uses metaphors as generative devices(Schön 1993) to create new perspectives and insights. For example, Morgan


(1986) suggests different organizational metaphors can be used as diagnostictools to gain insights into practice, which may then lead to the implementationof new strategies based on different metaphors. Within CMS, metaphors areoften used as devices for critique in which we surface the impact particular oneshave on organizational analysis and practices (Boje 1995; Hatch 1998; Palmer

<LINK "cun-r6"><LINK "cun-r16"><LINK "cun-r23">

and Dunford 1996). The macroscopic approach is therefore rooted in mono-logical discourse as a way of providing explanations of social activities.

The microscopic approach is particularly relevant to social constructionistinquiry because it focuses on the use of language and the speech act, rather thanthe use of metaphors as conceptual tools. From the microscopic perspective,metaphors are seen as “illustrative devices” (Alvesson 1993:114), ways of

<LINK "cun-r1">

304 Ann L. Cunliffe

enhancing how we shape meaning in the moment, or as persuasive devices inhelping others to see events in a particular way (Billig 1987). I suggest the

<LINK "cun-r3">

potency of metaphorical forms of talk arise from their ability to provoke anembodied response from the listener through contrast. Metaphors may be seenas the language of the ‘Other’ (Cooper 1987, 1989) because they say one thing

<LINK "cun-r7">

but imply another. Meaning is never fully present but “a kind of constantflickering of presence and absence together” (Sarup 1989:35); an utterance

<LINK "cun-r25">

which is a deliberate lie in which the very act of lying helps give sense to awhole. Therefore, in speaking metaphorically and using words from onecontext to make sense of another we are startling the listener by presenting animage of what is and is not.

I offer an example of how metaphor, as a poetic form of talk, can generatean arresting moment and a basis for making sense from within the conversationitself. I was talking with Steve, the Vice President of a company, about changeshis business was facing as a result of government deregulation of the industry.Prior to deregulation, the industry was structured with long-term (10–20 years)contracts between distributor, producer and service organizations. Afterderegulation, short-term contracts and cafeteria style choices became the normand his company no longer has exclusive rights to serve customers in the State’scities. He commented on the reluctance of people within the company to dealwith these issues, especially the Finance Department:

Steve: “Parts of the business aren’t talking about it. The Finance side is… it’s almost like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, they click theirheels and they want to go back to Kansas — and you can’t goback. Humpty Dumpty’s off the wall — I’m sorry!” (Laughter)

In this example, children’s stories are compared with business operations —two very different contexts. The incongruity of men and women in suitsdesperately clicking their heels, engaged my attention, and the images createda strong sense of how Steve may feel about the naiveté of the Finance Depart-ment in longing for the security of the good old days back home in Kansas or onHumpty’s wall. Not only did I grasp a sense of the internal organizationalrelations, but I could connect with the irony: the contrast of the FinanceDepartment and Dorothy. Perhaps it is the blatant difference between themetaphor and its subject of comparison that evokes ironic resonance; theillusion of differences and similarities or the “flickering of presence andabsence” (Sarup op. cit.).

The use of metaphor and irony overturn literal meaning and this may be


the reason for their potency and why one may be struck by their ‘untruth’.Certain implicit assumptions lie within these dialogical practices: the words arenot to be taken literally, there is a deliberate lie (that the Finance Department islike Dorothy), and the speaker is perhaps trying to engage the listener’s feelingsin some way (incredulity, commiseration?). From a monological perspective,metaphors question literal meaning and our notions of reality because theyimply that meaning is located within the speech utterance, not the accuracy ofreference to some external object. In other words, Steve is not imparting factualinformation, rather his language creates a sense of the living, embodied rela-tionships he sees himself dealing with and generates a much more powerful andlasting response from me than if he had said “the Finance Department are naivein thinking things are going to revert back to the old way of doing business”. Inthis way, poetic talk can make a crucial difference to the way we respond, actand make sense of our experience because it engages attention, invites response,leaves much open to the imagination, and gives color to a situation — thelistener is provoked.

Metaphors may be symbolic as well as dialogical, yet still provoke anembodied response. This issue emerged in my conversation with Lisa, amanager in a different organization. She spoke of how stereotypical metaphorswithin organizational life led to a feeling of separation:

Lisa: “The question to me is to what degree does the organization wantme or other kinds of people and be willing to accept there areother ways of behaving and acting — to become more cognizantthat there are norms that are culturally-biased and gender-biased.… Unless the organization is open to that, it’s not going to beespecially effective. The joking around … my predecessor had apicture on the wall — it was a team thing — one of those huntingmetaphors with male hunters chasing men in deerskins (ourcompetitors) — but it was so male and they didn’t get it.

Ann: “The images of aggression and masculinity?”Lisa: “Yes, and in meetings they use baseball and football metaphors —

so I thought ‘I’m not using any sporting metaphors, I’m creatingmy own’.”

I had a sense of her feelings about what she perceives as gender-biased meta-phors, both symbolic and dialogic, that challenge her feelings of connectednesswithin the organization. Her sense of exclusion seems to lie in gendered normsand organizational metaphors that create ideologies and practices which are

306 Ann L. Cunliffe

embedded within social relations. In contrast to Goffman’s socialized, scriptedperformance, Lisa’s experience gives a sense of the duality that may arise fromlinguistic and symbolic resources: the hunting metaphor seems to have aninclusionary effect (creating an image of ‘us men against the beast’) and anexclusionary impact for those members who do not connect with the metaphor.Strong metaphors are highly ‘emphatic’ and ‘resonant’, i.e. rich in implications(Black 1993:25–26), and this is a good example.

<LINK "cun-r4">

A poetic interpretation of dialogue focuses on how metaphors may createstrong impressions, images, and feelings, which strike the listener in-the-moment and affect his/her response (as with Lisa). The potency of the meta-phor as a rhetorical device is seen in the impressions and feelings created by theimages. The responsive nature of this way of talking may emerge as the listenersympathizes (‘yes that’s my experience too!’), is incredulous, skeptical, orrepulsed by the image (‘Oh no! That can’t possibly be!’). In other words,metaphors can be a potent way of connecting in dialogue if the images resonate.It is this aspect that makes them crucial to constructing a shared sense becausethey can provide ways of connecting with and moving others. However, as wesee with Lisa’s example, the potency of metaphor in daily talk may not be basedonly on connection, but also disconnection — her expression of resistance liesin using different metaphors. Thus, metaphors are powerful because they canevoke imaginative and embodied responses which may lead us to talk aboutsituations and relate to people in different ways.

A monological interpretation suggests that metaphors may incorporate“social supplementarity” (Gergen 1992:220) because their meaning is not

<LINK "cun-r12">

specific or complete but can depend on the listener’s interpretation. Gergenclaims that contrary to the idea of a number of postmodern writers (e.g.Derrida 1978), signifiers are not completely free floating with constantly

<LINK "cun-r10">

deferred meaning; rather, there is some understanding located in the stream ofconversation. However, that understanding will depend on the listener supply-ing the supplement. In the example given, I (as the listener) am providing myinterpretation which may be different from Steve’s, Lisa’s, and your own asreader. Control over meaning is lost as soon as the words are spoken. By usingmetaphor, meaning may be conversely enriched by its evocative power but alsomuddied by leaving so much to the listener’s imagination.

To summarize, responsive dialogue is important in constructing a sharedsense of experience. In the examples above, this shared sense is betweenresearcher and manager (and maybe reader), but may also be extended to thecreation of joint understanding within an organizational context. Social poetics


offers a researcher a way of exploring speech situations with organizationalmembers in their organizational settings. In doing so, all speech participantscan together surface the impact of poetic forms of talk on the shaping oforganizational ‘realities’ and practices. For example, do members of theorganization use the same or similar metaphors, do metaphors offer a form ofconnectedness between members,4 do they form the basis for a shared organiza-tional discourse, do they create ideologies, or hegemonic and exclusionarypractices? In exploring these questions, researchers may combine a criticalperspective with a focus on the lifeworld of organizational participants.

Storytelling: Connecting in responsive ways

We all tell stories, and during the better performances we feel the adrenalinepump as word pictures dance in our intellect and we begin to live the episodevicariously or recall similar life events. … As listeners, we are co-producerswith the teller of the story performance. It is an embedded and fragmentedprocess in which we fill the blanks and gaps between the lines with our ownexperience… .” (Boje 1991:107)

<LINK "cun-r6">

As Boje says, stories can be very powerful ways of connecting with others andunderstanding our experience because of the embodied and imaginativeresponses they can create. Stories can help construct our ‘everyday realities’from childhood through life: the child who is convinced there is monster underthe bed; my teenage daughter still claims the Easter Bunny came and patted herhead one night when she was 6! Organizational theorists also recognize thepotency of stories, which are seen as having a number of functions such ascultural transmission, socializing or disciplining organizational members, andsense making. Each will be discussed briefly before exploring storytelling as arhetorical-responsive dialogical practice.

Within modernist, monological research, stories are seen as transmitters oforganizational culture by communicating core messages in metaphorical andsymbolical ways (Ott 1989:32). Such stories may be about organizational

<LINK "cun-r22">

events, people or ‘heroes’, and are seen as modes of unification; helpingsocialize members into acceptable behaviors, attitudes, rites and rituals. In otherwords, stories are the glue that holds the organization together and managersare often seen as holders of the glue jar. Postmodern authors see storytelling ashaving the insidious role of “An in situ practice of power and discipline” (Boje

<LINK "cun-r6">

1994:434) in which members are brought into line. Storytellers construct the

308 Ann L. Cunliffe

organizational hegemony, an inclusionary and exclusionary practice in whichone view is recognized. Instead of acting as integrating mechanisms, ‘postmod-ern’ stories break the organization into warring factions or collectives thatrecruit followers, establish and monitor storylines. Ironically, these are not‘human’ stories; rather people are effects of the stories, pawns in the powercontest. In other words, it is the stories themselves that hold the power ratherthan the people telling them. This dehumanization process raises the questionas to whether the sense of reality that stories create (their power) lies in thewords or the dynamics of the telling and their acceptance. Are we struck by thewords, the images they create, our embodied reactions to those words …? Thesequestions will be discussed later.

Watson (1994) moves towards a dialogical stance by humanizing storytell-

<LINK "cun-r29">

ing as a way of helping us make sense of our surroundings. Stories are symbolicresources: high stories which generate loyalty and low stories which “perpetuatecynicism, distrust and disbelief” (op. cit. 192–193). He sees the manager’s roleas narrator and stories as ways in which individuals “handle the hurt” and dealwith felt constraints of the official culture — a human rather than organization-al construction. The storyteller’s role is revived, not as an instrument ofoppression or emancipation, but as a part of the sense making process. Plots areconstructed between individuals trying to deal with or act within an organiza-tional context.

From a dialogical perspective, stories can be powerful linguistic devices thatopen up possibilities for connecting by creating images that strike the imagina-tion of other participants in the conversation.

By its novelty, a poetic image sets in motion the entire linguistic mechanism …It takes root in us. It has been given us by another, but we have the impressionthat we could have created it, that we should have created it. (Bachelard1991:xiv, cited in Katz and Shotter 1996:927)

<LINK "cun-r18">

In this way, stories can provide ways of crossing the boundaries of discourse inthe contested realm of talk. I found the managers I spoke with told manystories, and that those stories created responses and connections in ways thatwere not necessarily obvious to me in the moment of speaking. I responded inunselfconscious ways within our dialogue. I started to explore this issue in mylater conversations. I wish to focus on one example in which I was particularlystruck by the manager’s storytelling and its impact. I had videotaped our firstconversation in an attempt to capture our dialogical practices and we were bothwatching this video when I commented that he told a lot of stories:


Mike: “and I do a lot of that. Forme it’s probably themost effective way indialogue to tell stories and use analogies and to make pictures …”

Ann: “… it can be very persuasive …”Mike: “yes, I think comments about it being the weakest form of argu-

ment is probably a very modernist view you know. Clearly, whenone is trained/educated in the sixties/seventies, you know, right inthe teeth of rationalism it sticks (laughter) but by native style I’mmuch more a storyteller. Matter of fact, sometimes for presenta-tions I’ve written fables and presented … a particular Board ofDirectors — I remember we were struggling with an issue aboutstrategy and where do we go and they had a very difficult timeseeing themselves in the picture, right, and what they were causingto happen in the organization. So I wrote this about 6–8 pagefable, and read it at the board meeting, about the Middle Ages andlikened our organization to a marauding band that had to supportitself off the land at the same time it was trying to … and they gotit! They could find themselves! And it was very helpful.”

Ann: “Did they make those connections with themselves?”Mike: “Oh yes, it wasn’t subtle (laughter). It just moved it out into a

safer context for them to see themselves…”.

The rhetorical or persuasive nature of dialogue is exemplified here both incontent and process as Mike uses a story to show me the value of his storytell-ing. The excerpt illustrates the responsive nature of our dialogue — I laughedwith Mike, perhaps giving him the impression I agreed — although that was nota conscious action at the time. My laughter perhaps made him comfortableenough to respond with another story. Mike’s story-within-a-story dramatizedhis experience and created shared meaning in the interactional moment whilstalso providing a trigger to my later reflective thinking about the descriptive andrhetorical function of storytelling.

This is the practice of social poetics, exploring how we are struck, graspmeaning or make connections in-the-moment. Perhaps the story created asimilar response byMike’s Board; the fable influenced their way of thinking andopened up new possibilities. Mike was using a story as a “connective trigger”(Cunliffe 2001) or way of creating an arresting moment as the images reverber-

<LINK "cun-r8">

ated and opened up new possibilities for connecting. Such triggers are rhetoricalpractices that unsettle oldways of talking.Mike’s comment that the fablemovedthe issue into a safer context for the Board almost implies that the issue had to berecontextualized into a realm of “ontological security” (Giddens 1990:92), an

<LINK "cun-r14">

310 Ann L. Cunliffe

emotional way of being in which our identities and social surroundings are notthreatened.Mike’s creation of a virtual reality may have helped the Board see thesituation in a less personal, less threateningway. As a researcher reflecting on ourconversations, these stories stuck in my mind long after our conversation,perhaps because, as Boje suggests, in dramatizing experience they resonated andallowed me to imagine and put myself in the story.

Instructive statements: Constructing possibilities

Try not to think of understanding as a ‘mental process’ at all. … But askyourself: in what sort of case, in what kind of circumstances, do we say, ‘NowI know how to go on’ … (Wittgenstein 1953: no. 154)

<LINK "cun-r30">

While metaphors and stories can be seen as figurative and imaginative ways oftalking, discourse may also include more literal and direct ways of talking thatmay be termed “instructive statements” (Shotter 1993:34). These forms of talk

<LINK "cun-r27">

are gestural because they help direct the attention of participants to features inour tentative and often contested everyday conversational relationships:features “that might otherwise escape our notice” (ibid. 2). In this sense,instructional statements do not have a representational function but a rhetoricalone; enabling participants to be arrested within moment-to-moment interac-tion. As a rhetorical device they can be important ways of talking because theycan open up possibilities for creating new connections and moving others andself in conversation and action. Often, we take this form of talking for grantedbecause it is something we do in our everyday interaction. However, a morereflective use of these instructional forms of talk, or linguistic ‘shapers’ wouldenable us to be more effective in connecting with and moving others.

What are such statements? Shotter suggests they are striking forms of talkwhich may be verbal or gestural: ‘look at that’, ‘imagine what would happen if…’, ‘do this …’, pointing to something or shrugging our shoulders. They mayalso relate to other features of our talk; our tone and rhythm of speaking.Instructive and gestural statements draw our attention and allow us to makeconnections. This issue arose in my first conversation with Mike when hecommented that as a manager, he felt it was important to encourage people toreflect on situations:

Mike: “… if I can understand what the other person is saying … do Iagree or disagree with her? That’s more like reflecting because


you’re including yourself in that …”Ann: “…. challenging yourself? testing your ideas…?”Mike: “I think again, as managers, we do that all the time and we can be

very explicit and you hear language like ‘Let me understand whatyou are saying…’ … Or the manager might say; ‘I understandwhat you are saying, but I don’t think you know what the compa-ny is trying to achieve here. Let me give you some additionalknowledge on our goals — so you can reflect on what we’retrying to achieve.’ Or if you want to involve the person more, yousay, ‘explain to me …’ and you make the person be reflective.”

Ann: “So are you saying that managing is self reflection but also gettingothers to reflect as well?”

Mike: “In perfect situations …”.

This part of the conversation seemed to be both about reflective dialogue andinvolve instructive statements. Mike (unconsciously) uses instructional state-ments to bridge conversational gaps he sees between himself and others: “so youcan reflect …”, “explain to me …”. Mike uses these statements to draw atten-tion in two possible ways: first as an example of how managers might call out orconfront a response from other organizational participants, and secondly, hemay use instructive statements to provide me with some dialogical possibilitiesor ‘hooks’ on which to hang my understanding. He also uses forms of talk toreveal new ways of connecting with others, “let me give you some additionalknowledge …”, as I do “So you are saying …?”. Instructional statements maytherefore move us to do or say something differently; a crucial aspect ofmanagement practice. However, managers need to do more than connect withothers, they also need to shift the way of thinking, talking and acting of thoseothers. I propose this can be intimately linked to the rhetorics of languagewhich can bound as well as open up possibilities. Mike spoke of the potentialeffect of this type of language as we went on to talk about performance reviews:

Mike: “… you see things like — ‘is able to …’ — right? ‘understands howto…’ — you know? so it’s not … a category might be problemsolving but the dialogue that’s there, the instructions, the infor-mative words that are put there, encourage you into a real reactivekind of mode. It’s like: ‘exhibits ability to …’, it’s very bounded.It’s bounded language, you know? It’s saying objectify this like anobjective statement, ‘this person is a good problem solver —check ‘is’ or ‘isn’t’.’ I think too few managers reflect upon evenhow to answer that question — it’s a very reactive answer.”

312 Ann L. Cunliffe

He suggests we need to be aware of the effect of language on our responses andgives examples of how instructional statements, when framed in terms of ‘is/isnot’, do not leave room for possibilities. Thus, our use of words orients ourresponses and our ways of relating. This is where an understanding of theconstitutive nature of language might help us develop a more critical andreflexive awareness of our ways of talking and their influence on our practices.

In summary, poetic and instructive ways of speaking are part of oureveryday conversations and can be very potent in connecting with others andsharing a sense of our lived experience. When managers in my study spoke oftheir experience, they used poetic forms of talk which evoked images, feelings,connections, and responses. The vibrant use of language, poetic imagining,gestural statements, and resonant ways of speaking can open up possibilities forcreating shared meaning. Poetic and everyday ways of talking are also a meansof moving the ‘imaginary’ (something in the internal relations of our experi-ence: Shotter 1993) to the ‘imagined’ (shared as an ongoing, languaged activi-

<LINK "cun-r27">

ty); of creating both a shared (and disconnecting) organizational discourse.Such forms of talk are important because managers are expected to persuadeand move people to act in particular ways within their organizational landscape.

Summary

What I have attempted to do in this paper is show what critical and dialogicmanagement research might look like by using social poetics as a means ofexploring how we shape meaning and create social/organizational ‘realities’between us through our everyday intralinguistic practices. Conventionalmanagement theory is monological, consisting of generalizations and interpre-tations of some assumed external phenomena or internal consciousness —researchers often study the codes, patterns, structures, or socializing effects oflanguage or stories. Critical management research calls for a reflexive question-ing of ideologies, assumptions, representations, and theorizing — still oftenfrom a monological perspective. A critical dialogical research agenda celebratesthe active subjectivity of our ways of making sense while calling for self-reflex-ivity — questioning how our intralinguistic activities influence ways of relating,making sense of, and constructing our social realities. A more symmetrical formof research emerges in which we focus on understanding how we jointly createa sense of experience and on opening up opportunities to act and relate toothers in more collaborative and ethical ways.


Social poetics focuses on the originatory, taken-for-granted and responsivenature of our interaction as managers, researchers and ordinary people livingour lives. Understanding how our everyday dialogical practices influence thisprocess creates an opportunity to act and relate to others in more effective ways.The notion of social poetics can help managers and researchers become morereflexively aware of the impact of their moment-to-moment interaction and ofthe constitutive element of their daily conversation. It is this aspect that canprovide a contribution to the development of Critical Management Studiesbecause it brings a critical perspective to both everyday interaction and ourresearch practices.

Notes

1. The poetics of language is based on the Greek ‘poiein’, to create, (Bohm, 1980: p.14).

<LINK "cun-r5">

Language is seen to be creative and imaginative rather than representational.

2. I am aware that in commenting on my dialogue with managers I am writing after theevent and trying to make sense (from my perspective) of an embodied process, much ofwhich, I am claiming, is undisclosed, tacit, momentary, and symmetrical. Thus, in reflectingon our dialogical practices and trying to explain them in a different time and space I amironically re-presenting and dis-embodying those practices. Being up front about theselimitations, undermining representations, and emphasizing the plurality of the constructingprocess is the essence of a critically reflexive approach.

3. I selected particular parts of my conversations with managers because they either ‘struck’me at the moment of speaking and remained with me long after the conversation took place,or because when I listened to or watched the tapes of those conversations, certain parts ofthem resonated with my story or way of talking. In other words, I experienced the embodiedand rhetorical-responsive aspects of our dialogue and am acting as ‘practical co-author’ ofthis research experience. The excerpts of dialogue in the text are contextualized to themoment of speaking rather than their exact place in the overall conversation because thefocus of study is the discourse itself and the forms of talk. My concern is not with interpret-ing ‘the facts’ or categorizing the content of the talk and imputing unities and transcendentalmeanings that may not exist but with the rhetorical-responsive aspects of talk; how we maybe ‘struck’ in conversation and the suasive impact.

4. See Cunliffe (2001) for further discussion and exploration of this issue.

<LINK "cun-r8">

References

Alvesson, M. 1993. “The Play of Metaphors.” In J. Hassard and M. Parker (eds), Postmodern-

<DEST "cun-r1">

ism and Organizations. London: Sage, 114–131.

314 Ann L. Cunliffe

Bakhtin, M.M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by C. Emerson.

<DEST "cun-r2">

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Billig, M. 1987. Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cam-

<DEST "cun-r3">

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Black, M. 1993. “More about Metaphor.” In A. Ortony (ed), Metaphor and Thought.

<DEST "cun-r4">

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–41.Bohm, D. 1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

<DEST "cun-r5">

Boje, D.M. 1991. “The Storytelling Organization: A Study of Story Performance in an Office-

<DEST "cun-r6">

Supply Firm.” Administrative Science Quarterly 36:106–126.———. 1994. “Organizational Storytelling. The Struggles of Pre-modern, Modern and

PostmodernOrganizational LearningDiscourses.”Management Learning 25(3):433–461.———. 1995. “Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of Disney as

Tamara-Land.” Academy of Management Journal 38(4):997–1035.Cooper, R. 1987. “Information, Communication and Organization: A Poststructuralist

<DEST "cun-r7">

Revision.” Journal of Mind and Behaviour 8(3):395–416.———. 1989. “Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis 3: The Contribu-

tion of Jacques Derrida.” Organization Studies 10(4):479–502.Cunliffe, A.L. 2001. “Managers as Practical Authors: Reconstructing our Understanding of

<DEST "cun-r8">

Management Practice.” Journal of Management Studies 38(3):351–371.Czarniawska-Joerges, B. 1997. “A Four Times Told Tale: Combining Narrative and Scientific

<DEST "cun-r9">

Knowledge in Organization Studies.” Organization 4(1):7–30.Derrida, J. 1978. Writing and Difference. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

<DEST "cun-r10">

Fairclough, N. 1993. Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press

<DEST "cun-r11">

Gergen K. J. 1992. “Organization Theory in the Postmodern Era.” In M. Reed and M.

<DEST "cun-r12">

Hughes (eds), Rethinking Organization: New Directions in Organization Theory andAnalysis. London: Sage, 207–226.

Gibbs, R.W. 1993. “Process and Products in Making Sense of Tropes.” In A. Ortony (ed),

<DEST "cun-r13">

Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:252–276.Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

<DEST "cun-r14">

Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

<DEST "cun-r15">

Hatch,M.J. 1998. “Critical Resistance to the JazzMetaphor.”Organization Science 9(5):600–605.

<LINK "cun-r16">

Hatch M.J. and S. Ehrlich. 1998. “The Dialogic Organization (And its Implications for the

<DEST "cun-r16">

Management of Organizational Change).” Paper presented at the Academy of Manage-ment, San Diego.

Höpfl, H. 1995. “Organizational Rhetoric and the Threat of Ambivalence.” Studies in

<DEST "cun-r17">

Cultures, Organizations & Societies 1:175–187.Katz, A.M. and J. Shotter. 1996. “Hearing the Patient’s ‘Voice’: Towards a Social Poetics in

<DEST "cun-r18">

Diagnostic Interviews.” Social Science Medicine 43(6):919–931.Lyotard, J.F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of

<DEST "cun-r19">

Minnesota Press.Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

<DEST "cun-r20">

Ortony, A. (ed). 1993. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

<DEST "cun-r21">

Ott, J. S. 1989. The Organizational Culture Perspective. Richard D. Irwin Inc.

<DEST "cun-r22">

Palmer, I. and R. Dunford. 1996. “ConflictingUses ofMetaphors: Reconceptualizing Their Use

<LINK "cun-r23"><DEST "cun-r23">

in the Field of Organizational Change.”Academy ofManagement Review 21(3):691–717.


Pollner, M. 1987. Mundane Reason: Reality in Everyday and Sociological Discourse. Cam-

<DEST "cun-r24">

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Sarup, M. 1989. An Introductory Guide to Poststructuralism and Postmodernism. Athens GA:

<DEST "cun-r25">

University of Georgia Press.Schön, D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York:

<DEST "cun-r26">

Basic Books.———. 1993. “GenerativeMetaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy.” In A.

Ortony (ed), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:137–163.Shotter, J. 1993. Conversational Realities: Constructing Life through Language. London: Sage.

<DEST "cun-r27">

———. 1994. “Now I Can Go On: Wittgenstein and Communication.” Paper presented atthe University of Calgary.

———. 1996. “Living in a Wittgensteinian World: Beyond Theory to a Poetics of Practices.”Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 26(3):293–311.

———. 1997. “Dialogical Realities: The Ordinary, the Everyday, and Other Strange NewWorlds.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 27(2/3):345–357.

———. 1998. “Telling of (not about) Other Voices: ‘Real Presences’ Within a Text.”Concepts and Transformation 3(1/2):73–92.

Shotter, J. and M. Billig. 1998. “A Bakhtinian Psychology: From Out of the Heads ofIndividuals and into the Dialogues Between Them.” In M. Mayerfield Bell and M.Gardiner (eds), Bakhtin and the Human Sciences: No Last Words. London: ThousandOaks and New Delhi: Sage, 13–29.

Tulin, M.F. 1997. “Talking Organization: Possibilities for Conversational Analysis in

<DEST "cun-r28">

Organizational Behavior Research.” Journal of Management Inquiry 6(2):101–119.Watson, T. 1994. In Search of Management: Culture, Chaos and Control in Managerial Work.

<DEST "cun-r29">

London: Routledge.———. 1995. “Rhetoric, Discourse and Argument in Organizational Sense Making: A

Reflexive Tale.” Organizational Studies 16(5):805–821.Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

<DEST "cun-r30">

———. 1980. Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vols. I & II. Oxford: Blackwell.———. 1981. Zettel (2nd edn.) G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright (eds.). Oxford:

Blackwell.About the author

Assistant Professor of Organization Theory in the Department of Public Administration,California State University, Hayward, USA. Cunliffe obtained her M.Phil. and Ph.D. degreesfrom the University of Lancaster, U.K.

</TARGET "cun">

voffset 4> everydayconversations

Documents