an historical analysis of hrd knowledge

An historical analysis of HRDknowledge

A critical review of “The foreman: master andvictim of doubletalk”

Julia Storberg-WalkerDepartment of Adult and Higher Education, North Carolina State University,

Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, and

Laura L. BieremaDepartment of Lifelong Education, Administration and Policy,

Programs inAdultEducationandHumanResourceandOrganizationDevelopment,University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to analyze the historical development of HRD knowledge.The analysis aims to use the qualitative research technique of text deconstruction on an importantmanagement text from the human relations phase of organization theory. Deconstruction is not acommon method to HRD. In this paper, HRD scholars interested in how HRD knowledge and theoriesare created are given this tool to expose implicit assumptions.

Design/methodology/approach – The article uses text deconstruction, based on Bradshaw.

Findings – The deconstruction identified several beliefs that suggest that Roethlisberger wasoperating from a masculine epistemological perspective. Two clusters of findings emerged: one clusterrevolved around the role of the researcher, and the other cluster revolved around the role of gender.

Research limitations/implications – Postpositivist perspectives on knowledge generation andtheory building in HRD are limited. Post-structural analyses need to be considered.

Practical implications – The article exposes how a gendered history influenced HRD scholarshipand practice, and provides suggestions for future scholarship and practice.

Originality/value – Legitimizes text deconstruction as an integral research tool for HRD.

Keywords Gender, Human resource development, Knowledge management

Paper type Research paper

Why do we find it so congenial to speak of organizations as structures but not as clouds,systems but not songs, weak or strong but not tender or passionate? Is it becauseorganizations physically resemble one but not the other? (Gergen, 1992, p. 207).

Following Gergen’s suggestion, we believe that researchers understand and makesense of organizations in certain ways and not others. Language can generate differentways to understand organizations, and discourse can influence how researchers andpractitioners conceptualize and theorize about organizations, organizing, and otherHRD phenomena. For this study, we adopted this type of discursive understanding oforganizations, and we focused on the language used in a classic and highly-citedmanagement article written during the human relations phase of management sciencein the USA. We conducted a textual analysis, using text deconstruction methodology.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

An historicalanalysis of HRD

knowledge

433

Received 10 September 2007Revised 14 December 2007

Accepted 4 March 2008

Journal of European IndustrialTraining

Vol. 32 No. 6, 2008pp. 433-451

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0309-0590

DOI 10.1108/03090590810886553

“In doing this kind of close textual analysis, techniques from post-structural theory,such as deconstruction, can help us read between the lines, attending to what is notbeing said” (Martin, 2000, p. 210) as well as what is being said, and written, and actedupon, and accepted as “natural” fact.

The text selected for the study was F.J. Roethlisberger’s “The foreman: master andvictim of doubletalk”, originally published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR)Roethlisberger (1945). The article was re-printed in HBR as a “classic” management intext in 1965, and consequently introduced a whole new generation of managementscholars to Roethlisberger’s ideas about management. The text was also publishedagain in 1968, in Roethlisberger’s Man in Organization compilation. This text wasselected for this study because it was widely cited (see Table I) and arguablyrepresents the views commonly accepted and valued during that historical time period.Because the text was reprinted and widely cited, we consider the text as a proxy ofdominant managerialist discourse during the human relations phase of industrialdevelopment in the USA. Further, this discourse remains foundational tocontemporary HRD (French and Bell, 1998).

Extending from our perspective on and understanding of discourse, we take theposition that the theories that guide contemporary HRD research and practice areproducts of discourse rather than products of rational objectivity. Like writing articlesand speaking, creating theories requires selecting certain words and concepts overothers and we assert that this selection process has the potential to reflect unconsciousor unexamined assumptions. “Sometimes, the way a theory is stated, the words andconcepts that are used and not used, can reveal theoretical assumptions that havedifferent implications when that theory is applied to women and to men” (Martin, 2000,p. 210). In a discursive perspective, theories “are neither the product of immaculateconception nor reducible to ideological conspiracies. They are rather constitutive ofdiffering configurations of interests, symbolic resources through which a sense ofcommonality is recognized and constructed”, (Perry, 1992, p. 85). Perry suggested thattheories do not just exist in the world waiting to be discovered through science.Theories are social creations of common understanding between people that shape howwe see and understand the world. Discourse is the mechanism that enables thiscommon understanding.

Discourse changes over time. HRD theories and theory building methods, beingsocial creations, become knowledge when their discourse generates some acceptance(to a greater or lesser degree) by scholars and/or practitioners. Over time, the discoursecan change and a new understanding or acceptance of what is “knowledge” emerges.For example, in 1911, near the beginning of the industrial revolution in the USA,Frederick Taylor’s notion of scientific management was the accepted theory of work. In1914 Henry Ford applied Taylor’s theory to his Model-T assembly line and decreasedthe amount of time to build a Model T from 728 hours to 93 minutes (Quinn et al., 1996).This “success” at efficiency and rationalizing the work process triggered thewidespread adoption of the theory. The discourse at this time was rational; “the bestsymbol of this model is the dollar sign because the ultimate criteria of organizationeffectiveness are productivity and profit”, (Quinn et al., 1996, p. 4).

Eventually, due to the consequences of an exclusive focus on “productivity andprofit”, a new theory of work emerged. New evidence was produced and published thatintroduced psychology as a key to understanding workplace behavior and high

JEIT32,6

434

Sco

pe

ofin

flu

ence

Rel

ated

cita

tion

s

Web

ofS

cien

ceD

ata

(194

5te

xt)

Geo

gra

ph

y:

US

A,

Eu

rop

e,Is

rael

,In

dia

Lan

gu

ages

:E

ng

lish

,G

erm

an,

Fre

nch

Su

bje

ctca

teg

orie

s:M

anag

emen

t,B

usi

nes

s,S

ocio

log

y,

Psy

chol

ogy

,In

du

stri

alre

lati

ons,

Soc

ial

scie

nce

s,A

nth

rop

olog

y,

Ed

uca

tion

,H

ealt

hp

olic

y,

Law

,B

ehav

iora

lsc

ien

ces,

Com

mu

nic

atio

n,

Cri

min

olog

y,

His

tory

,ot

her

s

73ar

ticl

es(1

956-

2003

)F

oun

din

:Administrative

Science

Quarterly,PersonnelJournal,Journalof

ManagementStudies,California

ManagementReview,Journalof

General

Management,OrganizationalBehavior

andHumanPerform

ance,Pacific

SociologicalR

eview,A

cadem

yof

ManagementJournal,British

JournalofSociology,

HumanOrganization,Journalof

AppliedPsychology,SociologicalReview,

ZeitschriftfurSoziologie,Academ

yof

ManagementReview

,ot

her

s

Web

ofS

cien

ceD

ata

(196

5te

xt)

Geo

gra

ph

y:

US

A,

Au

stra

lia

Lan

gu

ages

:E

ng

lish

Su

bje

ctca

teg

orie

s:B

usi

nes

s,M

anag

emen

t,E

con

omic

s,C

onst

ruct

ion

and

bu

ild

ing

tech

nol

ogy

,E

ng

inee

rin

g,

Civ

il,

En

gin

eeri

ng

,In

du

stri

al,L

aw,P

sych

olog

y,S

ocia

lsc

ien

ces,

Soc

iolo

gy

13ar

ticl

es(1

967-

1988

)F

oun

din

:SloanManagementReview,Academ

yof

ManagementJournal,Akron

BusinessandEconom

icReview,AmericanJournalof

Econom

icsandSociology,

BostonUniversityLawReview,CaliforniaManagementReview,Harvard

Business

Review,HumanRelations,Journalof

IndustrialEngineering,

oth

ers

(continued

)

Table I.


knowledge

435

Sco

pe

ofin

flu

ence

Rel

ated

cita

tion

s

Roe

thli

sber

ger

,19

45-2

006

Geo

gra

ph

y:

US

A,

Au

stra

lia,

Eu

rop

e,P

hil

ipp

ines

,Hon

gK

ong

,Sou

thK

orea

,Isr

ael,

Ind

ia,

New

Zea

lan

dL

ang

uag

es:

En

gli

sh,

Fre

nch

,G

erm

an,

Dan

ish

,It

alia

n,

Nor

weg

ian

,P

ortu

gu

ese

Su

bje

ctca

teg

orie

s:M

anag

emen

t,S

ocio

log

y,

Bu

sin

ess,

Ed

uca

tion

and

edu

cati

onal

rese

arch

,P

sych

olog

y,

Law

,S

ocia

lsc

ien

ces,

An

thro

pol

ogy

,In

du

stri

alre

lati

ons

and

lab

or,

Inte

rnat

ion

alre

lati

ons,

Mat

hem

atic

s,P

edia

tric

s,P

ub

lic

adm

inis

trat

ion

,U

rban

stu

die

s,P

ub

lic,

En

vir

onm

enta

lan

doc

cup

atio

nal

hea

lth

,Eco

nom

ics,

Info

rmat

ion

scie

nce

and

lib

rary

scie

nce

,R

ehab

ilit

atio

n,

Op

erat

ion

sre

sear

ch,

Ap

pli

edli

ng

uis

tics

,H

emat

olog

y,

Fol

klo

re,

Soc

ial

wor

k,

Infe

ctio

us

dis

ease

s,M

usi

c,O

bst

etri

csan

dg

yn

ecol

ogy

,P

ath

olog

y,

Ph

ilos

oph

y,

Soc

ial

issu

es,

Ph

ysi

olog

y,

Ph

arm

acol

ogy

and

ph

arm

acy

,P

hy

sics

,ot

her

s

396

arti

cles

(195

0-20

05)

Fou

nd

in:Academ

yof

ManagementJournal,PersonnelJournal,California

ManagementReview,HumanOrganization,Academ

yof

ManagementReview,

Administrative

Science

Quarterly,Harvard

BusinessReview,Journalof

Applied

Psychology,Journalof

ManagementStudies,AmericanPsychologist,American

SociologicalReview,Personnel,AmericanJournalof

Sociology,HumanRelations,

Journalof

GeneralManagement,Organization

Studies,OrganizationalBehavior

andHumanPerform

ance,PersonnelandGuidance

Journal,

Relations-Industrielles-IndustrialRelations,SocialForces,SociologicalReview,

ZeitschriftfurBetriebsw

irtschaft,BehavioralScience,British

Journalof

Sociology,

Industrial&

LaborRelationsReview,JournalofAppliedSocialP

sychology,Journal

ofCom

munication,Journalof

SocialPsychology,PacificSociologicalReview,

PersonnelPsychology,PublicAdministration

Review,SloanManagementReview,

Sociology

ofEducation,Sociometry,TrainingandDevelopmentJournal,Travail

Humain,WorkandOccupations,AmericanJournalof

Econom

icsandSociology,

AmericanJournalof

Medicine,AnnualReviewof

Sociology,BusinessHorizons,

Contemporary

Psychology,Econom

icandIndustrialDem

ocracy,

Exchange-OrganizationalB

ehavior

TeachingJournal,IndustrialR

elations,Journal

ofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,Journalof

ManagementInquiry,Kolner

ZeitschriftFurSoziologieundSozialpsychologie,ManagementInternational

Review,MedicalCare,MountSinaiJournalof

Medicine,OccupationalPsychology,

OperationalResearchQuarterly,Proceedings

oftheInstitute

ofRadio

Engineers,

Researchin

OrganizationalB

ehavior,SociologieduTravail,Sociology-TheJournal

oftheBritish

SociologicalAssociation,UrbanEducation,UrbanEducation,

ZeitschriftfurSociologie.

Oth

erjo

urn

als

con

tain

one

cita

tion

and

ase

lect

ion

incl

ud

e:Academ

icRadiology,ActualiteEconom

ique,Administration

&Society,

AmericanJournalof

Diseasesof

Children,DeviantBehavior,Harvard

Business

Review,Higher

Education,AmericanJournalof

MentalDeficiency,American

Journalof

Nursing,

Annee

Psychologique,Archives

ofPathology&

Laboratory

Medicine,Arquivod

Brasileiros

dePsicologiaAplicada,Biometrics,Bureaucrat,

Child

Care

Quarterly,E

ducationalPolicy,Econom

icsandPhilosophy,

amon

got

her

s.

Table I.

JEIT32,6

436

performance. This discourse contained different assumptions, and suggested that inaddition to rationalizing the workplace, attention had to be paid to the humancomponent of the production processes. This discourse was eventually called the“human relations” phase of management, and is the focus of this study.

The purpose of this research is not to argue that one type of discourse is “better”than another. Instead, the purpose is to provide an example of how discourse containsassumptions that are generated from specific, historical, and contextual perspectivesand values. Discourse can act as a catalyst for change, or discourse can perpetuate thestatus quo. For this study, the interest was on exploring how discourse perpetuated atraditionally masculine understanding of the world. That is to say, the study wanted tounderstand how assumptions of the discourse equated traditional masculine traits(rationality, hierarchy, aggressiveness, objectivity) with value-free and objectiveknowledge.

When “objective” and “value-free” knowledge is associated with masculine traits,the discourse is considered a “gendered” discourse, and knowledge is “gendered.”Exposing the unexamined connections between what is considered “objective” andmasculine traits is important for contemporary HRD for at least two reasons. First,when HRD scholars and practitioners learn that assumed neutral knowledge can begendered, they may be more able and willing to critically look at their foundationalassumptions. They may develop an understanding of how discourse may suggestpreference for one gender over another. Ultimately, their perspective may not change,but they are likely to be in a better position to make their assumptions explicit andjustify their position.

The second reason this study is important is because globalization and a diverseworkforce are introducing different ways to view and understand the world into thetwenty-first century workplace. These real changes in the environment of HRDdemand that scholars and practitioners understand more about their own assumptions,and how they shape interpretation, meaning, and action. Especially when constructingnew HRD knowledge through building new theories, scholars need to broaden theirunderstanding of how discourse can hide bias and perpetuate the status quo.

Research question and guiding assumptionsThe specific research question for this article is:

RQ1. Can text deconstruction illuminate gendered knowledge assumptions in aclassic management text? And if so, how?

This question is one component of a larger study which seeks to answer the largerquestion of: “Does enduring gendered discourse continue to influence contemporaryHRD? And if so, how?” The theoretical foundation guiding this inquiry is feministtheory, and the method of analysis is post-modern text deconstruction. For thismanuscript, the guiding hypotheses were:

H1. There is a gendered understanding of knowledge in the classic text.

H2. It may be possible to uncover continuations of gendered knowledge incontemporary HRD theory building.


knowledge

437

We purposively selected a classic text that clearly represented the (then) status quo:masculine assumptions undergirded what was assumed to be neutral, objectiveknowledge. The selection was made in order for readers to see the process ofdeconstruction of a text that most of us have read, but probably never examinedcritically for its inherent masculine, rational assumptions. So in addition to exposingthe masculinist perspective, the text was selected as one way to introduce HRDscholars and practitioners to text deconstruction as a research method. That is to say,this article illustrates how text deconstruction is a scientific tool that can be used toanalyze and produce trustworthy evidence. HRD readers may “know” thatRoethlisberger’s text contains bias just by reading it, but text deconstructionprovides the “evidence” that is necessary for scientific research and generating newknowledge.

Assumptions that guide this study include:. there is a connection between accepted knowledge and power;. there are diverse ways of experiencing the world, but some ways of experiencing

the world are more accepted than others; and. “accepted” knowledge and experience have been historically masculine.

The paper is organized as follows:

(1) A discussion of the connections between gender, feminist theory, andcontemporary HRD discourse.

(2) A presentation of the human relations phase and Roethlisberger’s classic text.

(3) A description of methods used in this study.

(4) A presentation of the findings.

(5) Discussion and implications for HRD.

Gender, feminist theory, and contemporary HRD theoryFeminist theory suggests that gender, power, and knowledge are interconnected andconsequently when creating knowledge (e.g. theory building) an analysis of gender andpower must be included as an integral component of the knowledge creation process.From this perspective, integrating gender (defined as more than sex) into the theorybuilding process is one way to contribute towards problem formulation, conceptualdevelopment (Lynham, 2002), or paradox (Poole and van de Ven, 1989). Much likeeconomic theory, with its inherent assumptions (or biases, depending on yourperspective) we suggest that feminist theory, with its inherent assumptions (or biases)can contribute towards HRD research, practice, and theory.

“Normal” science usually does not have a reaction against differing ways toaccomplish problem formulation – Lynham (2002) called it conceptual developmentphase in her General Method, van de Ven described it as a “base” in his model of theorybuilding, Weick called it disciplined imagination, and Poole and van de Ven (1989)called it building theory through paradox. Whatever it is called, it is commonlyunderstood as a process of identifying problems in the real world and figuring out away to conduct research that will add to the existing stock of knowledge in a discipline.However, when researchers choose to include gender as an important component ofmental models and creating knowledge, they can receive criticism and can be

JEIT32,6

438

marginalized or accused of producing biased work (Swanson and Holton, 2001). This isan interesting fact in itself and is worthy of continued examination; however, it isoutside the scope of this paper. Sufficient for our purpose is that we are framing ourstudy problematizing (e.g. not accepting the status quo) about how gender matters toknowledge creation in general, and to HRD theory building in particular.

A concrete example of how gender has been proven to influence knowledgegeneration can illuminate our position. Kohlberg’s (1972) stage theory of human moraldevelopment had been guiding researchers and practitioners in psychology until thetheory was challenged as not attending to the “different voices” of women’s moraldevelopment. Kohlberg’s theory was more accurately considered a theory of malemoral development, based on subsequent research and analysis conducted by CarolGilligan in the 1970s. In 1977, Gilligan re-interpreted the findings of the stage theory ofmoral development by using gender as relevant demographic variable AND byhypothesizing that gender may actually influence the processes of moral development(e.g. the phenomenon of interest). Her strategy of inquiry framed the problem of moraldevelopment differently than the original researcher and she introduced gender as arelevant category of analysis. She hypothesized that gender was more than ademographic variable. Unlike Kohlberg, Gilligan hypothesized that gender was deeplyconnected to the emergence and processes of moral development. By framing the studyin this way, her strategies of inquiry influenced how subsequent research decisionswere made. How she framed the research, assessed its findings, and analyzed itsresults were consequences of how she framed the problem. The results of her studyexposed the limitations of assuming that gender did not matter. What was oncepresented as a gender-neutral theory applicable to all human beings was re-presentedin Gilligan’s work as gender-biased, and she “called attention to the gendered nature ofstandards that were supposedly neutral”, (Calas and Smircich, 1992, p. 232).

Research has also shown that performance-focused words are often connotated withmasculine traits. Kanter (1977), in her seminal work “Men and Women of theCorporation”, explored how gender is manifested in organizations in seeminglyinvisible ways through discourse. Ross-Smith and Kornberger (2004) conducted agenealogical analysis of the word rationality, and demonstrated how it has been closelyassociated with male/masculine from Descartes, to Bacon, to Weber. They also foundthat in the twentieth century, Weber’s formal rationality expanded therational/masculine connections to include effectiveness and efficiency: “The inherentassociation of masculinity and rationality starts to become associated witheffectiveness and efficiency, and they, in turn, start to become masculine attributes.So the modern bureaucratic organization. . .becomes characteristically masculine.” (p.288). The work of Gilligan, Kanter, and Ross-Smith and Kronberger all provideillustrations of how knowledge claims are shaped and perpetuated through discourse,and that the discourse itself contains elements of gendered bias. A feminist critique,combined with text deconstruction, provides the analytical tools for scholars toexamine how discourse, knowledge claims, and theory building may be producinglimited or partial understandings of important HRD and social phenomena.

Human relations and “The foreman”“The foreman: master and victim of double talk”, written by F.R. Roethlisberger, wasoriginally published in the Harvard Business Review, Spring 1945 issue. Roethlisberger


knowledge

439

himself suggested this text was “one of the most popular articles I ever wrote” (p. 35).Evidence supports his belief: thousands of reprints were sold, the text was included inseveral edited books, and it was re-printed in 1965 in the HBR Classic series, thusintroducing a new generation of management scholars and practitioners to his ideas.This section introduces the text and the context–the human relations phase – withinwhich it was written.

The human relations school or movement emerged during a time of increasingunionization, industrial development, conflict and war, and performance/productionneeds. Alvesson and Deetz (2000) asserted that this phase was guided by unexaminednormative assumptions designed with objectivity and reason in mind. The goal ofmanagement theory and research during this time was to secure objective, neutralresults. The movement can be thought of as a combination of theory and practice: thetheory is widely represented by the writings of (primarily) Harvard Business Schoolfaculty, and the practice is represented by the design and delivery of the Trainingwithin Industry (TWI) project, most importantly the job relations training componentof TWI. The status of Harvard, combined with the massive governmental support andwide application of TWI, created the conditions for a wide acceptance of the processes,practices, assumptions, and ideology associated with human relations theory.

The work of Elton Mayo and his proteges Fritz Roethlisberger and William Dickson,among others, were key scholarly contributors to this phase of industrial development.Mayo introduced the field of psychology to management, and the three men wrote aboutthe Hawthorne experiments, even though they came to the studies after they were begun.Mayo “argued with passion that social and clinical psychological approaches could beincorporated into an enlightened management in such a way that the social-emotionalneeds of workers would be met, thus ending various kinds of irrational hostility in thefactory and the “need” for workers to unite in opposition to management (i.e. viaunionization)”, (Bramel and Friend, 1981, p. 868). The human relations movement was areaction to the tenets of scientific management, and began incorporating ideas of thepersonal, the relational, and the human into modern industrial organizations. Theoverriding concern of the human relations movement was to “preserve stable laborrelations. . .as a means of combating and deflecting union pressure”, (Breen, 2002, p. 241)as well as to increase productive capacity to meet the war needs. Consequently,psychology, with its rational and objective assumptions and research methods, werebrought to bear on this new problem.

On the practitioner’s side were members of an emerging new profession (e.g.personnel management) including Channing R. Dooley, Walter Dietz, William Conoverand Michael J. Kane. These four men represent the Training within Industry programand are known as “The Four Horsemen” (Breen, 2002). TWI was a massive, governmentsponsored initiative that drew from practice (the four horsemen) and theory (the Harvardcontingent). TWI is closely associated with Mayo, Roethlisberger et al. through theirparticipation, beginning in 1941, in a specific component of the overall TWI project. Thiscomponent was job relations training, a “direct outgrowth of the Hawthorneexperiments” (Gillespie, 1991, as cited in Breen, 2002, p. 251). The job relationstraining focused on the human element of TWI and was championed by Dooley andDeitz. This training was not without controversy during its design and implementation,but eventually “just under half a million certificates” (Breen, 2002, p. 262) were issuedand plant supervisors and union representatives saw value in the program.

JEIT32,6

440

The enduring connections between TWI and contemporary HRD is evident:Channing Dooley was the first member inducted into the HRD Scholar Hall of Fame inMarch of 2000. In May, 2001, large sections of the final TWI report were reprinted togive another generation of HRD scholars and practitioners exposure to his work, whichwas called foundational to HRD (Swanson and Holton, 2001). The contemporary HRDfocus on performance, outcome, and standardized process are all key attributesgenerated from the substantial work of TWI and Channing Dooley.

Contemporary critiques of the human relations phasePossibly due to the widespread acceptance of human relations and personnelmanagement in the contemporary (1930s to 1960s and beyond) industrial workplace,critiques began to emerge from multiple disciplines targeting different aspects of themovement. The foci of the critiques were broad, and a small selection is presented hereto illustrate the diverse perspectives and disciplines that deemed the movementrelevant enough produce critique. The critiques included: a suggestion of class biasfrom the disciplines of psychology (Bramel and Friend, 1981) and sociology (Coser,1956; Kerr and Fisher, 1957, as cited in Bramel and Friend, 1981); an assertion ofpaternalistic control methods from organization theory; a charge of overlooking thepolitical in managerial work from management science (Willmott, 1984); and theproblem of combining science and advocacy from organization behavior (Yorks andWhitsett, 1986). The Hawthorne studies, from which Mayo and Roethlisberger drewempirical findings, have also been extensively critiqued both methodologically andanalytically.

Additionally, there have been feminist critiques of human relations. Feminists havecriticized scholarship for treating gender as an anomaly that has been consistentlyignored and marginalized in the literature. This marginalization is evident by genderbeing featured only in “special” journal issues or relegated to “special interest groups”of professional associations (Martin, 2000; Ross-Smith and Kornberger, 2004). When apreferred or rewarded discourse displaces opposing issues and ideas to the sidelines, astrong message is sent about what is “really” important to the dominant group.“Separating feminist theory from other areas and treating it as a specialized field initself means to ignore the link between organizational discourse, managementpractices and gendered realities” (Ross-Smith and Kornberger, 2004, p. 281). Theychallenged how rationality and masculinity have been dominant in the historicaldevelopment of organization studies and in particular suggest that human relationsmovement is entrenched with masculine rationality and maximizing efficiency andeffectiveness. “The point to be made here about the human relations movement is notso much that it resulted in the recognition of informal organization but that it produceda “highly developed ideological apparatus of normative control, of hegemony, for themanagement of organizations” (Clegg and Dunkerly, 1980, p. 135, as cited inRoss-Smith and Kornberger, 2004, p. 290). They further observed that human relationsserved to impact change management through viewing the worker as an object ofinterest with the potential to be patronized and manipulated by management. Thisresulted in the manager being cast routinely in the role of patriarch. Throughout thischange in focus in the human relations movement, the organization retained itspersona as efficient, thus further entrenching the mechanical, economic driven model.


knowledge

441

Overview of “The foreman”The text tells a story of the Foreman working in the modern (1940s) industrialorganization. Roethlisberger used the literary technique of storytelling through theobjective eyes of an invisible observer to craft a composite picture of Every Foreman.While the picture of the Foreman was presented objectively, from nowhere, it was alsopresented as a pathology – something wrong needing to be fixed – created bymanagement activities guided by explicit Weberian bureaucratic logics and ideals.Roethlisberger used the words of medicine and sickness to describe the problems of theForeman in modern industrial organizations – words like pathology, disease,diagnosis and treatment, and symptom.

To give readers a sense of the experience reading the original text, we attempt hereto mimic Roethlisberger’s “invisible” author technique and present some highlights ofthe text in story form. Consequently, our writer’s presence completely disappears fromthe text.

A narrative re-presentation of “The foreman: master and victim of double talk”:

The Foreman has lost authority and control over his work, he is insecure and fearful, and heneeds Management to fix his condition. The good old days of being the “cock of the walk”(p. 39) have passed; despite having more knowledge, he has less power. The Foreman isresponsible for more things that lie outside his control, and he is faced with the“complications” of war such as women and people of color to manage. The Foreman ismotivated by economic reward, status (as reflected by his closeness to the Boss), and havingauthority and control. All three of these motivators have eroded in the modern organization,leaving the Foreman bereft of satisfaction and happiness.

It didn’t use to be so. Compared to his “old-time counterpart”, the modern Foreman assumesseveral new roles in the organization that the previous generations of Foremen did not have todeal with. The Foreman is “bewildered by the many different roles and functions he issupposed to fill” (p. 37-38) and has to “relate himself to a wider range of people” (p. 39) duringthe course of his daily work. Men under him and men above him do not have to take hisposition into account when they decide how much to cooperate, how much to communicate,and how much to accommodate. Further, his job has gotten more complex and undefinedfrom the old days “. . .far better than the old-timer of 25 years ago the modern foreman knowshow much work should be done in what length of time; how much it is worth; what the bestmethods to be used are; what his material, labor, and burden costs should be; and what thetolerances are that his products should meet”, (pp. 38-39).

Despite this great expanse of knowledge, the Foreman’s position is basically insecure. He iscontinually worried about how to remain in the good graces of Management: “In some casesthis preoccupation with what the boss thinks becomes so acute that it accounts for virtuallyeverything the foreman says or does and all his thinking about what goes on aroundhim. . .hours at work and home are spent in figuring and anticipating what explanations orreasons he will need to give the boss. And the boss’s most innocent and unintentional acts –failure to say “good morning”, for instance – are taken perhaps to imply disapproval” (p. 41).This worry produces nervous breakdowns and “other forms of mental anguish”, (p. 41)causing countless man hours lost of productivity, efficiency, and profit.

This modern Foreman is the natural outgrowth of modern industrial development, caused byManagement’s lack of understanding of the multiple social forces involved when men worktogether. It is management’s fault that the Foreman is unhappy at work. One consequence ofthis unhappiness is the emergence and growth of unionization of Foremen. This is a naturalconsequence of taking money, status, and power away from man while at the same time not

JEIT32,6

442

attending to the social forces acting upon him. Like B.F. Skinner’s “obsessive pigeons”, (p. 34)the Foreman will continue to react to these declining conditions at work unless Managementassumes responsibility for “its own social creations”, (p. 36) of which the Foreman is one. OnlyManagement can fix what Management has created, but the problem is that different skills areneeded to resolve the social problems of the modern organization. Some Management leaderspossess these Administrative skills, but most do not because demonstrating these skills arelooked down upon: Administrators are seen as lacking ambition, valuing getting along overgetting ahead, and being “not too logically articulate”, (p. 51).

Towards the end of the text, Roethlisberger went on to advocate for developing theadministrative capabilities in Foremen as one way to resolve “mental anguish” andunionization forces within organizations. He called upon Management to takeresponsibility for its “own creation” and to develop curatives for the social problemswithin industrial organizations. That this text was reprinted at least three times over a25-year period is evidence of its influence and longevity as relevant and prescriptive.

Description of method and analysis in the studyFeminist deconstructionPostmodernism has prompted the qualitative method of deconstruction, “which meansto take apart the language of a text to expose its critical assumptions and theideological interests being served” (Patton, 2002, p. 101). Deconstruction originated inphilosophy and literary critiques (Bradshaw, 1996), and focuses “on the multiplemeanings embedded in every text [to move] us away from universal truth claims and abelief in a metanarrative toward a mode of engagement that uses play, fragmentation,and differentiation in order to disrupt and erode “normalizing” discourses” (Bradshaw,1996, pp. 98-99). Postmodernists view reality as socially constructed and examinesocial arrangements to understand how they create asymmetrical power relations thatusually function to privilege the interests of the powerful. Postmodernism is skepticalabout claims to “truth” that are often made by the powerful, for instance patriarchalexpectations that women must be aggressive and competitive to advance.Deconstruction views subjectivity and consciousness as reproduced throughlanguage. Discourse, or how we bring subjectivities into reality through language, isa structuring framework we use to literally talk ourselves into certain realities.Organization members often talk about performance in capitalistic and masculineterms, thus reinforcing the reality of being a “lean and mean” organization that values“hard-charging” managers who get the job done. A critical analysis of text examineshow discourse creates oppressive social realities. Deconstruction should “give a voiceto the voiceless, as it deconstructs those popular culture texts which reproducestereotypes about the powerless” (Denzin, 1991, p. 153). A feminist postmodernperspective critiques patriarchal social arrangements that marginalize women andother groups who are not white males. “Concerned with the difficulties of everproducing more than a partial story of women’s lives in oppressive contexts,postmodernist feminist researchers regard “truth” as a destructive illusion” (Oleson,1994, p. 164). Feminist deconstruction dissects text to discover where languagedeceives and contradicts itself (Calas and Smirchich, 1999), or where there aresignificant silences and gaps (Bradshaw, 1996). “A feminist/postmoderndeconstruction enables us to become resisting rather than assenting readers of atext” (Bradshaw, 1996, p. 99).


knowledge

443

Deconstruction exposes and challenges purported single truths and works toprivilege othered views. The method of deconstruction involves extensive reading andre-reading of the original text. After the text is well absorbed then specific techniquesare used to pull out or identify words, phrases, or assumptions that are problematic(based on the researcher’s specific theoretical foundation). Once the centering themesare discovered in a deconstruction, the opposite of the privileged term is sought andbrought to our attention. Often the text is re-read considering these issues. Thisanalysis uses Bradshaw’s (1996) categories to organize the findings.

In general, deconstruction looks at text to see how power is hidden and how the statusquo is perpetuated. For example, Bradshaw (1996) found that certain language createsdichotomies or dualisms and the category of “others” by using pronouns such as we orthem to indicate exclusion of certain groups. The creation of the category of other oftenreflects the marginalization of women and other groups (in this example, Foremen) thatare not in power. In addition to examining words, deconstruction also examines how theauthor uses footnotes, quotation marks, metaphors, parentheses, or asides (Bradshaw,1996). These techniques signal that the information is not central or critical to the text. Incontrast, words or phrases that are privileged as central to the text (Calas and Smircich,1999) are not marginalized in that way. Deconstruction also seeks to “dismantlehierarchical dichotomies” (Bradshaw, 1996) where false oppositions are created such asmanagement/non-management, change/nonchange, female/male or good/bad.Deconstruction challenges these dichotomies. Texts are also read for how theyfunction to maintain harmony, rationality and unity (Bradshaw, 1996) through theirprojection of a solitary, homogenous, rational truth. Such textual attempts at harmonydeny alternative or competing views. Deconstruction exposes and challenges purportedsingle truths and works to privilege othered views. Bradshaw (1996) also exposeshyperbole and mockery in the text to show how they function to privilege the insider.

AnalysisWe approached this study as concerned feminists who wish to see a broaderapplication of theoretical framework to the HRD field. We are white women who workat Research 1 universities in the USA. In this study we each independently reviewedthe text, drafted notes, memos, tables, and categories to identify themes or repetitiveideas, and attempted to understand the text in its own terms. Next, we each began toindependently deconstruct the text following Bradshaw’s (1996) methods ofdeconstruction. As the deconstruction continued, we emailed ideas to each other andspoke often on the phone.

A general consensus emerged about the specific themes, concepts, and categoriesthrough the application of the Bradshaw deconstruction method. We exchanged tables,lists, notes, and discussed the work regularly. As the findings began to coalesce, webegan to write up discrete sections of the manuscript. It was during this writing upphase that some differences between us emerged. Specifically, we did not always agreeon how to present the findings or implications. While there was little disagreementabout the Roethlisberger text itself, there was a measure of disagreement on theimplications for contemporary HRD, and how vigorously to critique the field. Thisdiversity of thought regarding the implications for HRD quite possibly mirrors thediverse thinking of contemporary HRD scholars – depending on where one falls alongthe spectrum, the implications can be dire or non-existent.

JEIT32,6

444

We had lively discussions about our differing viewpoints, and several interestingfactors came to light. A big difference was the tenure status between the authors: onlyone of us has tenure, while the other is actively pursuing it. The tenured author wasmuch more likely to express implications in stark, unforgiving terms. The other authorwas less likely to make bold or declarative statements because she didn’t want to beseen as too far “out there” away from “academic science” and she was concerned aboutretaining “scholarly acceptance” from non-feminist peers and mentors. Thesediscussions were lively and continued during the study, and underscore how we areactive participants in and creators of the dominant discourse in HRD. Several decisionswere reached about how far to “push” the field of HRD in this article, and agreementwas made to work towards honoring both perspectives in this and future writingcollaborations.

FindingsIn text deconstruction, findings are generated by critically reviewing text in order toexpose hidden assumptions or belief systems. Findings are one possible way tounderstand text, and findings are “supported” if readers individually believe that theinterpretations are one plausible way of understanding. Because this study usedBradshaw’s (1996) deconstruction method, the findings are presented in threecategories:

(1) dichotomies/dualisms, “other” categories, and silences;

(2) maintenance of harmony, rationality, and unity; and

(3) hyperbole and mockery as the “insider’s” joke.

Dichotomies, “other” categories, and silencesDichotomies signal how an author “splits” the world into understandable chunks.Deconstruction assumes that the chunks are not objective; rather, they represent thedominant way of perceiving reality. Dominance implies marginalization and/orsilencing of “other” ways to understand or explain up the world. This paragraphillustrates the types of dichotomies found in the text. Roethlisberger presented theForeman as a pathology (dichotomy: health vs. illness) needing to be fixed(dichotomy: broken vs. unbroken) by Management (dichotomy: Foremen vs.Management). Foremen must rely on experts (dichotomy: doctor vs. patient) to“cure” him of the social ills (dichotomy: economic rationality vs. social irrationality)that were the natural spawn of modern industrial organization (dichotomy: happypast vs. tumultuous present). The “cure”, however, requires Administrators(dichotomy: Administrators vs. Management) who possess social skills (dichotomy:valued rationality vs. devalued social skills) that are viewed as lacking ambition(dichotomy: ambition vs. social skills) and illogical (dichotomy: valuing relationshipsvs. valuing profit). If Management (dichotomy: Management vs. all else) does nottake responsibility, then Foremen unions (dichotomy: worker’s unions vs.Management) will continue to grow. Masculine traits of rationality, ambition,hard work, were supported by “othering” feminine traits of relationship,collaboration, and the “soft work” involved in attracting and retaining helpfulcolleagues and employees. For example, men who demonstrated care and nurturedcollaboration were seen as opposite to ambitious and rational leaders.


knowledge

445

The analysis also found silences in the text that reinforce dominant white maleknowledge. For example, there was solitary mention of “women and Negroes” in thetext who were presented as war time “complications” to the Foreman: “One onlyneeds to add to this picture the more recent complications of expanded warindustries, the influx of new workers – some of them women, untutored andinexperienced in the ways of the factory; some of the Negroes, equally inexperiencedand untutored but also apprehensive of their place in this “white man’s heaven” –and we have the picture of the social environment of our modern Forman” (p. 50).The ForeMAN is a white male as are the specialists, administrators and MANagers.Masculine pronouns are used throughout the text and the others – men of color andwomen – were referred to as a management problem. Other examples of silencingand othering: the few references to unions were negative, which is not surprising asthe text was published in the Harvard Business Review. Further, theForeman-to-Foreman interactions were presented as conflicted not collegial:Foremen competed for the Boss’s smile. The text alluded to power relationsbetween Foremen and Management, but these references were consistently footnotedand not given space (e.g. legitimacy) in the text.

Maintenance of harmony, rationality, and unityThe findings suggested that a “single truth” was presented and privileged in thetext. Roethlisberger’s (1945, p. 50) writing is presented as truth, he offers nocitations, nor does he give voice to the Foreman. The author admits, “No exampleshave been given, but countless could be cited by any person. . .The final evidence,however, it is well to remember, exists in the minds of foremen and in theirbehavior, not in this article; and for those who doubt, let them go out and look andlisten for themselves”. He has arranged his thesis as the truth no intelligent personcould possibly question.

The Foreman faced multiple, uncontrollable forces that impinged on his ability to dothe job, but it was clear that the Foreman’s loyalty is to management first:

Thus, the foreman, like each individual in the modern industrial structure, is in effect painfullytutored to focus his attention upward to his immediate superiors and the logics of evaluationthey represent, rather than downward to his subordinates and the feelings they have (italics inoriginal; Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 42).

Roethlisberger’s publication told scholars and practitioners that management was theauthority in a logical and rational organization, and the Foreman had to straddle thelogical world of management and the illogical world of the workers.

In this myth, the worker culture and its informal groups (Unions) were suspect anddangerous:

It should be noted that these manifestations of formal organization are essentially logical incharacter. Through formal organization man expresses his logical capacities; in fact, it is oneof the chief outlets for the expression of man’s logical capacities. It should also be noted thatin the past 25 years there has been a tremendous amount of attention given to this aspect ofbusiness organization. . .And yet, the foreman, unlike some higher executives, cannot stayonly in this logically sheltered atmosphere (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 50).

The myth is that organizations are logical and rational, and workers and unions are theopposite.

JEIT32,6

446

Productivity is an uncontested value suggested by the text:

As a result [of this impossible, rationalized job found on pp. 36-37], the foreman gives lipservice in his courses to things which, in the concrete shop situation, he feels it would besuicidal to practice. In the shop, for the most part, he does his best to perform by hook or bycrook the one function clearly left him, the one function for which there is no definite staffcounterpart, the one function for which the boss is sure to hold him responsible, namely,getting the workers to turn the work out on time (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 50).

Finally, at the end of the text, Roethlisberger argued that a class-based view of conflictand power in industrial organizations “at all cost(s) must not be representative of an“ism” (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 56). Roethlisberger, Mayo, and the Harvard School ingeneral “may have allowed pro-management or pro-capitalist commitments andideologies to distort their understanding of the world of industrial work”, (Bramel andFriend, 1981, p. 868) because they presented human relations as a technique to fightunionization. Conflict was to be suppressed, minimized by understanding executivesand administrators who were skilled in gaining the cooperation of men. The ideologicalimplications of authority and power in modern organizations are seemingly apparentto Roethlisberger in his description of the relationship between a foreman and hissuperior:

[. . .] it is clear that any adequate analysis would go far beyond the confines of this article,since it would involve a critique of modern business organization and the individual’s relationto authority and, in part, an examination of the ideologies held by the leaders and executivesof business (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 40).

However, he does not question nor examine the relations of power found withinmodern industrial organizations. He cited Barnard’s (1938, p. 41) classic The Functionsof the Executive, to support the above statement, and then returned to the focus onbehavior and “matters of common observation” rather than critiquing the concept ofauthority or power itself.

Hyperbole and mockery as the “insiders" jokeFindings suggest that the text communicates hidden meanings among the inner circle.In the case of the Foreman, Management was the inner circle and the Foreman was thesubject of irony, hyperbole, mockery and exaggeration. As the following quotationsdemonstrate, the Foreman was a Management problem. At the beginning of the article,Foremen were described as “monsters” that require fixing by management.Roethlisberger explained the dilemma of changing the nature of the Foremanproblem: “Failing to recognize the hydraheaded character of the social situation withwhich it is faced, management will cut off one head, only to have two new headsappear” (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 36): The next paragraph in the text referred to thearticle’s premise that “management’s chickens [Foremen] have come home to roost”.

Foremen were described as “go-betweeners” “forgotten men” and “the step-childrenof industry” (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 36). They were also expected to be an “example”(Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 37), “subforemen”, and “straw bosses”, (Roethlisberger, 1945,p. 39). Such mockery invites the reader to view the foreman as a powerless conduitbetween management and workers where they are expected to do an impossible job.The insider joke that the Forman was not what he used to be is exemplified byreferring to him as “the cock of the walk” (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 38) no more. The


knowledge

447

foreman is left “holding the bag” (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 48) where management islaughing at him for trying to do this impossible job. Now the Foreman must supervise“complicated” or marginalized workers in relationships that are often “the straw thatbreaks the camel’s back” (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 44) where “. . .the modern Forman isexpected to “cooperate" (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 48), “to cut off his nose to spite hisface” (Roethlisberger, 1945, p. 49). Women and minorities are not welcome in this“white man’s heaven” where their presence complicates the Foreman’s job. In dealingwith these complications, the foreman has a few choices. He, “stews in his own juice”,“he eats himself for lack of something else to hew and hack”, or he may seek politicalsolution to grind out major industrial ills and “do the ‘mills of God’” (Roethlisberger,1945, p. 51).

Discussion and implications for HRDIn this section, the findings are analyzed in terms of the research question, namely,“Can text deconstruction illuminate gendered knowledge assumptions in a classicmanagement text? And if so, how?” The working hypotheses were: there is a genderedunderstanding of knowledge in the classic text; and it may be possible to uncovercontinuations of gendered knowledge in contemporary HRD theory building.

This study notes that the historical period examined here was before thelegitimization of alternative theoretical paradigms (qualitative or interpretive). Thelack of alternative theoretical assumptions available to Roethlisberger is not the issue;rather, at issue is the continuation of norms and standards of discourse that continue toimpede the legitimization of alternative theoretical orientations and assumptions incontemporary HRD theory building.

First, a comparison of contemporary HRD literature with the “dichotomies andsilences” findings suggest that silences and dualistic thinking may be continuing toinfluence contemporary discourse of HRD. Contemporary dualisms includeperformance vs learning, individual vs group, strategic vs tactical, qualitative vsquantitative, organization vs individual, hierarchy vs democracy, and theory vspractice. The findings of this study challenge contemporary HRD theorists to examineaccepted knowledge (e.g. dualistic frameworks for thinking) can filter or organizemeanings that may carry forward unintended or unexamined biases. For example, lookat the distinction between behavioralist and humanist often made in HRD textbooks. Inthe classic text, Roethlisberger’s framework for analyzing the situation was objective,rational, and grounded in the behavioralist school. Men had things acting upon them,and then Men responded. It was assumed that the response behavior could beobjectively studied and rationally manipulated by changing the stimulus. In otherwords, human actions could be controlled and manipulated.

Second, this analysis suggests that there are significant implications for relyingalmost exclusively on objective guidelines for explaining phenomenon. Functionaltheory building does not consider power relations an issue or relevant, and assumesthat an objective reality exists to be discovered. Foundational HRD theories, asdescribed in the three-legged stool (Swanson and Holton, 2001) are all functionalist(economic, psychological, and systems theories). The addition of systems theory is theonly change to Roethlisberger’s framework, despite the broad spectrum of alternativeframeworks that can take into account power, meaning making, and emergentphenomena. Further, by footnoting issues of power and classifying relational skills

JEIT32,6

448

(perhaps what we would call emotional intelligence today) as “less than”,Roethlisberger, in essence, sets a course for HRD theorists and researchers to thinkof power and informal organization as problems, as pathologies, and something thatcan be factored out of the equation.

Although what is presented here is just the tip of the iceberg, we use this analysis asa reminder to scholars to recognize the dominance of the functionalist perspective inHRD. Despite approximately 60 years and the emergence of the knowledge economy,evidence suggests that management and HRD theoretical discourse continues to bedominated by dualistic thinking and functionalist assumptions. Postmodernism andpoststructuralism have allowed interpretive assumptions and incorporated power intotheoretical thinking; however, these perspectives continue to be contested and are oftendeemed “immature”, “biased”, or “unscientific.” By examining the historical roots ofHRD, this study illuminated the gendered assumptions in the history of HRD thought,and the possible continued influence of discourse on contemporary HRD theorybuilding. We suggest that by looking at theory building as discourse, hiddenassumptions and values emerge and are made visible. Better, diverse, and morerelevant theories are likely to be developed when this occurs because of the newawareness of values, assumptions, and taken-for-granted understandings. We alsocontend that a more critical reading of HRD literature will result in a more mindfultheory and practice and embrace Fetterley’s (1978, p. viii) assertion that “Feministcriticism is a political act whose aim is not simply to interpret the world but to changeit by changing the consciousness of those who read and their relationship to what theyread”.

References

Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000), “Doing critical management research”, Journal of ManagementInquiry, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 207-16.

Bradshaw, P. (1996), “Women as constituent directors: re-reading current texts using afeminist-postmodernist approach”, in Boje, D.M., Gephart, R.P. and Thatchenkery, T.J.(Eds), Postmodern Management and Organization Theory, Sage Publications, ThousandOaks, CA, pp. 95-124.

Bramel, D. and Friend, R. (1981), “Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and class bias inpsychology”, American Psychologist, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 867-78.

Breen, W.J. (2002), “Social science and state policy in world war II: human relations, pedagogy,and industrial training, 1940-1945”, Business History Review, Vol. 76, pp. 233-66.

Calas, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1999), “Post modernism? Reflections and tentative directions”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 649-71.

Clegg, S. and Dunkerly, D. (1980), Organization, Class and Control, Routledge, London.

Denzin, N.K. (1991), Images of Postmodern Society: Social Theory and Contemporary Cinema,Sage, London.

Fetterly, J. (1978), The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction, IndianaUniversity Press, Bloomington, IL.

French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1998), Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventionsfor Organizational Improvement, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.


knowledge

449

Gergen, K.J. (1992), “Organization theory in the post-modern era”, in Reed, M. and Hughes, M.(Eds), Rethinking Organization: New Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis,Sage, London, pp. 207-26.

Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Kohlberg, L. (1972), “A cognitive-developmental approach to moral education”, Humanist, Vol. 32No. 6, pp. 13-16.

Lynham, S. (2002), “The general method of applied theory building research”, Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 221-41.

Martin, J. (2000), “Hidden gendered assumptions in mainstream organizational theory”, Journalof Management Inquiry, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 207-16.

Olesen, V. (1994), “Feminisms and models of qualitative research”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln,Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 158-74.

Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Perry, N. (1992), “Putting theory in its place: the social organization of organizational theorizing”,in Reed, M. and Hughes, M. (Eds), Rethinking Organization: New Directions inOrganization Theory and Analysis, Sage, London, pp. 85-99.

Poole, M.S. and van de Ven, A.H. (1989), “Using paradox to build management and organizationtheories”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 562-78.

Quinn, R.E., Faerman, S.R., Thompson, M.P. and McGrath, M.R. (1996), Becoming a MasterManager: A Competency Framework, 2nd ed., Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Roethlisberger, F.J. (1945), “The foreman: master and victim of double talk”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 283-98.

Ross-Smith, A. and Kornberger, M. (2004), “Gendered rationality?? A genealogical exploration ofthe philosophical and sociological conceptions of rationality, masculinity andorganization”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 280-305.

Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F. (2001), Foundations of Human Resource Development,Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Willmott, H. (1984), “Images and ideals of managerial work: a critical examination of conceptualand empirical accounts”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 349-68.

Yorks, L. and Whitsett, D.A. (1986), “Hawthorne, Topeka, and the issue of science versusadvocacy in organizational behavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1,pp. 21-30.

Further reading

Akroyd, S. (1992), “Paradigms lost: paradise regained?”, in Reed, M. and Hughes, M. (Eds),Rethinking Organization: New Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis, Sage,London, pp. 102-19.

Bierema, L.L. and Cseh, M. (2003), “Evaluating HRD research using a feminist researchframework”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 5-26.

Dooley, C.R. (2001), “The training within industry report 1940-1945”, Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 127-290.

Elliott, C. and Turnbull, S. (2003), “Reconciling autonomy and community: the paradoxical role ofHRD”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 457-74.

JEIT32,6

450

Fenwick, T. (2005), “Conceptions of critical HRD: dilemmas for theory and practice”, HumanResource Development International, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 225-38.

Gilligan, C. (1977), “In a different voice: women’s conceptions of self and morality”, HarvardEducational Review, Vol. 47, pp. 481-517.

Howell, S.L., Carter, V.K. and Schied, F.M. (2002), “Gender and women’s experience at work: acritical and feminist perspective on human resource development”, Adult EducationQuarterly, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 112-27.

Lammond, D. (2005), “On the value of management history: absorbing the past to understand thepresent and inform the future”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 1273-81.

Roethlisberger, F.J. (1965), “The foreman: master and victim of double talk”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 22-184.

Roethlisberger, F.J. (1968), Man-in-Organization: Essays of F.J. Roethlisberger, Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Sambrook, S. (2003), “A ‘critical’ time for HRD?” Proceedings of the 3rd International CriticalManagement Studies Conference, Lancaster, pp. xx-xx.

Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F. III (2005), Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methodsof Inquiry, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Torraco, R. (2005), “Theory development and research methods”, in Swanson, R.A. and Holton,E.F. (Eds), Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry,Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 351-74.

Turnbull, S. (2002), “Social construction research and theory building”, Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 317-34.

About the authorsJulia Storberg-Walker is an Assistant Professor at North Carolina State University and anorganization development consultant specializing in assessing and understanding the impact ofinformal social relationships on learning and performing at work. Her research areas includesocial capital, communities of practice, theory building, and post-structural feminist theory. JuliaStorberg-Walker is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Laura L. Bierema is Associate Professor, Department of Lifelong Education, Administrationand Policy at the University of Georgia in the programs of Adult Education and Human Resourceand Organization Development. Her research interests include critical human resourcedevelopment, women’s learning and development, and post-structural feminist theory.


knowledge

451

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

an historical analysis of hrd knowledge

Documents