The Views of Foucault and Kafka in Relation to the Position of the Consultant - Essay Example

The Views of Foucault and Kafka in Relation to the Position of the Consultant In modern firms, the development of personal views is sometimes problematic especially when these views put under threat the existing organizational policies and culture. Towards this direction, consultants who are asked to intervene in the activities of a particular organization need to be careful when criticizing specific organizational initiatives or characteristics; criticism by consultants is necessary in order to improve the firm’s performance in its various sectors; however, this criticism needs to be developed within specific borders as they are stated by the managing board and the CEO. The views of Foucault and Kafka could be used in order to understand the role of consultants in modern organization; the potential challenges faced by a consultant who it trying to fight against existing organizational policies and practices can be explained by referring to the concept of ‘Parrhesia’ (as developed by Foucault in his study Fearless Speech); the work of Kafka ‘The Great Wall of China’ would be another study particularly valuable for the understanding of challenges and risks faced by consultants that try to opposite to existing organizational strategies and practices. The particular aspects of the above two studies will be presented – briefly – in this paper; the use of these studies in explaining the behaviour of consultants in modern organizations – especially when having to opposite to the firm’s existing practices – will be evaluated using appropriate citations from the work – the two studies mentioned previously- of the above two theorists. In accordance with Foucault the concept of ‘parrhesia’ is not new; in fact it is noted by Foucault that the specific term ‘appears for the first time in Greek literature in Euripides [c.484-407 BC], and occurs throughout the ancient Greek world of letters from the end of the Fifth Century BC; but it can also still be found in the patristic texts written at the end of the Fourth and during the Fifth Century AD, dozens of times, for instance, in Jean Chrisostome [AD 345-407]’ (Foucault, in Pearson, 2001). Parrhesia is related with a person’s responses to specific social challenges. Many times during his life an individual is asked to face opposite views and reactions; his ability to respond effectively to the above challenges is expressed through ‘parrhesia’. The importance of the above concept could be clearer if the origins of the specific word are examined. Grammatically, ‘parrhesia’ can be related with ‘rhisis’ or ‘rhesis’ which is the Greek term for ‘word’. Making the necessary adjustment to the above term, it can be stated that ‘parrhesia’ means speaking with no fear – referring to the reactions of the environment or the consequences in the personal/ professional life. Foucault gives a similar explanation to ‘parrhesia’. In accordance with the above theorist, ‘parrhesia’ may have two different aspects, ‘the pejorative sense of the word not very far from "chattering" and which consists in saying any or everything one has in mind without qualification’ (Foucault, in Pearson, 2001) – as Foucault notices such a use of ‘parrhesia’ can be met in Plato’s works. There is also another aspect of ‘parrhesia’. More specifically, it is noted that ‘most of the time, however, parrhesia does not have this pejorative meaning in the classical texts, but rather a positive one; "parrhesiazesthai" means "to tell the truth’’ (Foucault, in Pearson, 2001). In the last case, there is the problem with the term’s actual meaning. More specifically, ‘parrhesia’ is a critical term showing the ability of a person to tell the truth; however, which will be the criteria for the evaluation of the context of truth? Truth can be influenced by the personal perceptions of people – under these terms people that have same experiences may interpret differently these experiences using their own views when interpreting a particular event. On the other hand, it is not made clear by Foucault which could be the criteria for the identification of truth as part of the ‘parrhesia’ or who could execute the relevant task – identify the actual conditions of an event and make sure that these conditions will be described with accuracy when the above event is announced to third persons. The above initiative would be quite difficult to be developed – the description of events and perceptios by people cannot be controlled. Each person can use his/ her own perceptions when having to report an event to a third person – in the context described above. In a more completed description given by Foucault ‘parrhesia is a kind of verbal activity where the speaker has a specific relation to truth through frankness, a certain relationship to his own life through danger, a certain type of relation to himself or other people through criticism (self-criticism or criticism of other people), and a specific relation to moral law through freedom and duty’ (Foucault, in Pearson, 2001). The above definition of ‘parrhesia’ is in accordance with the explanation given previously – which leads to the assumption that ‘parrhesia’ can be characterized as the ‘fearless speaking’. Apart from the above, it is made clear by Foucault that ‘the last characteristic of parrhesia is this: in parrhesia, telling the truth is regarded as a duty; the orator who speaks the truth to those who cannot accept his truth, for instance, and who may be exiled, or punished in some way, is free to keep silent; no one forces him to speak; but he feels that it is his duty to do so’ (Foucault, in Pearson, 2001). Again, it is not made clear by Foucault how the duty described above is developed. Is it the result of a person’s views and experiences – influenced by the social environment - or it is set within a specific context in each particular geographic area – being related with culture and local ethics? The complexity of the term needs to be taken into consideration when having to deal with specific social and political conditions. An indication of the term’s complexity is its continuous change – referring to its meaning. Indeed, through the years, ‘parrhesia’ has been related with ‘parrhousia’ which means to appear in a specific place. It can also mean the appearance of a person – not only the physical but also the mental one. The above explanation of the context of ‘parrhesia’ is necessary in order to understand the potential use of the term for the interpretation of the behaviour of consultants in modern organizations – referring especially to the consultant’s duty to state their view regarding the firm’s activities and initiatives. The use of ‘parrhesia’ by consultants in modern firms could have the following effects: a) consultants would express their view on existing organizational structure, culture and activities without thinking of the consequences, b) the intervention of consultants in the organizational strategies would be more effective – by stating the problem as it is and by suggesting effective solutions – even if the latter would lead to the limitation of organizational profitability at least in the short term – consultants would offer more effective services, c) the specific practice would be expanded across organizations – this means that managers and employees in firms would learn to state their view and avoid hiding the problems that possible appear in the workplace – problems in various organizational activities would be revealed on time, d) the communication across the organization would be improved – a fact that could also lead to the improvement of employees performance. All the above benefits would be achieved if consultants in modern firms would adopt the concept of ‘parrhesia’ when handing various organizational challenges. However, because ‘parrhesia’ is also related with risks – as explained above by Foucault – is it often avoided by managers and consultants in modern firms; in the political and scientific field the specific concept is also avoided; in the above sectors, the promotion of specific interests within a particular period of time is unavoidable – ‘parrhesia’ could increase the problems in the workplace and lead to the increase of tense among employees. For this reason, ‘parrhesia’ is likely to be avoided in modern organizations; only when the organizational culture supports the specific context then ‘parrhesia’ is likely to be used by employees in a particular organization. Despite the challenges related with the development of ‘parrhesia’ by consultants in modern firms there are specific issues that need to be taken into consideration when trying to explore the potential effectiveness of the specific concept in organizations around the world: a) ‘parrhesia’ is likely to be appreciated by a firm’s managing directors – because ‘parrhesia’ is related with the truth it can lead to the identification of severe organizational failures – the firm’s performance is then expected to be benefited – either in the short or the long term, b) when an employee is removed from his/ her position because of ‘parrhesia’ then the specific fact is likely to adversely affect the rest of employees in the particular organization – in other words when fighting for the elimination of ‘parrhesia’ across the organization, managers should be aware of the fact that in this way the opposition of employees towards existing organizational practices would be increased – the existence of unfair practices would be assumed, a fact that could lead to severe conflicts in various organizational sectors and c) consultants that have the particular behaviour are going to be rewarded – either directly or indirectly; in any case their behaviour would be a positive element of their image in the market. In accordance with Foucault in the case of ‘parrhesia’ ‘the the speaker uses his freedom and chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery, and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy’ (Foucault, in Pearson, 2001). Regarding the above, it can be noted that firms that would not like ‘parrhesia’ by consultants would be the ones that seek to hide their activities – or of them or just a part; in other words, in firms where ‘parrhesia’ is prohibited - directly or indirectly – are those that have adopted unfair practices – referring to one or more organizational sectors – and they would prefer to hide these practices from the public. The use of the work of Kafka – referring especially to his study ‘Great Wall of China’ – for the explanation of the responses of consultants in modern organizations when having to face particular challenges – as indicatively described above – leads to different assumptions. The development of truth would not be a priority for consultants in modern firms – as Foucault highlighted in ‘Parrhesia’. Rather the development of a common practice in facing the problems appearing in modern organizations would be preferred by consultants and employees in all firms worldwide. Common practices and common behaviours by employees in modern organizations can be represented using the Wall constructed in China – as described in the relevant study of Kafka. In the study of Kafka, the construction of a high wall – named the Great Wall – in China is used as an example of the people’s cooperation and willingness to put all their efforts in order to support the people of their community. A first notification of Kafka when observing the development of the Wall is that the plan followed is not effective and cannot be logically explained – even if valuable assumptions can be made on human behaviour under conditions of high pressure. Indeed, it is noted that ‘when the sections were fully joined, construction was not continued on any further at the end of this thousand-metre section. Instead the groups of workers were shipped off again to build the wall in completely different regions’ (Kafka, in Johnston, 2009). In other words, the development of the Wall did not follow the most common practice – instead of its parts to be met and appropriately tighted together, rather different directions have been chosen – a fact that could be possibly explained using specific criteria of evaluation. In accordance with Kafka ‘how can protection be provided by a wall which is not built continuously? in fact, not only can such a wall not protect, but the structure itself is in constant danger’ (Kafka, in Johnston, 2009). The above comments and descriptions could lead to the following assumptions – in relation with the duties and priorities of consultants in modern organizations: a) common plans and initiatives would be preferred instead of strategies that are based on the views of a single person; b) the suggestions based on the views of employees – even if being in opposition with the view of consultant – have many chances to be effective; c) risks should be taken in modern organizations; the use of the same practices and plans for quite a long may guarantees the success of the result – at least up to a level – but, still, chances would exist for the innovative plans and practices to be successful; d) the decisions of leaders in modern firms cannot be doubted. In this context, Kafka is differentiated from Foucault. The latter supports the value of parrhesia within modern firms – ‘parrhesia’ would result to the opposition of employees with specific leadership decisions. On the contrary, Kafka highlights the need for joint action in modern organization – there would be no limits for the development of ‘parrhesia’ in modern firms if the views of Kafka would be applied. At a next level, Kafka uses the concept of ‘nomads’ in order to highlight the risks related with decisions that are based on personal perceptions – ignoring the common sense or the ethical principles held in a specific society. More specifically, it is noted that ‘those parts of the wall left standing abandoned in deserted regions could always be destroyed easily by the nomads, especially by those back then who, worried about the building of the wall, changed their place of residence with incredible speed, like grasshoppers, and thus perhaps had an even better overall view of how the construction was proceeding than we did, the people who built it’ (Kafka, in Johnston, 2009). In the above statement, nomads represent all those that seek to be benefited in conditions of uncertainty or turbulence. However, when a specific project is based on the joint effort of many people then it is likely that this project will be more protected from potential threats and failures. Using the views developed above, it could be noticed that consultants in modern firm face a significant dilemma: they have to decide whether to reveal their own view – using the concept of ‘parrhesia’ especially if they have to opposite with particular interests and long term organizational practices – or they could choose to follow the view of the majority – referring to the firm’s CEO, the members of the managing board and so on. In some cases, the development of personal views by consultants would be regarded even as contradicted with the interests of the majority of people within the organization – an example would be the need for the termination of the firm’s activities because of fraud that caused severe financial losses to the state, also the suggestions for expensive measures/ plans regarding the protection of the environment. Even if such a case occurs a consultant should be reluctant preferring to follow the principles of ‘parrhesia’ rather than being influenced by the views of the majority. At this point a dilemma may appear: the consultant could choose to be admired by the people than clearly declaring his view regarding specific organizational activities and practices. An indicative aspect of this behaviour is described by Kafka as followed: ‘the high regard which all those doing the building enjoyed, the devout humility with which people listened to their reports, the trust that simple quiet citizens had that the wall would be completed someday—all this tuned the strings of their souls’ (Kafka, in Johnston, 2009). However, it is also noted that ‘try with all your powers to understand the orders of the leadership, but only up to a certain limit—then stop thinking about them’ (Kafka, in Johnston, 2009). In other words, even if consultants would choose to prefer ‘parrhesia’ instead of the admiration, they would still avoid clearly stating their view having in their mind the concept of hierarchy: the decisions of leaders should be respected even if being opposite to the interests of the employees or the public. The difference in the hierarchy of values for Kafka and Foucault is clear. Consultants in modern firms would make their decisions taking into consideration all the issues developed above appropriately balancing the benefits and the negative aspects of each particular concept. References Fearless Speech- Discourse and Truth: the Problematization of Parrhesia - six lectures given by Michel Foucault at the University of California at Berkeley, Oct-Nov. 1983 [Fearless Speech was edited by Joseph Pearson and published in 2001.] http://foucault.info/documents/parrhesia/ Kafka - The Great Wall of China (transl. Ian Johnston, Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC, Canada, 2003, revised in 2009) http://records.viu.ca/~Johnstoi/Kafka/greatwallofchina.htm Read More