Abstract
In this paper we question the one-sided thesis that
contemporary organizations rely on the mobilization of cognitive
capacities. We suggest that severe restrictions on these capacities
in the form of what we call functional stupidity are an equally
important if under-recognized part of organizational life.
Functional stupidity refers to an absence of reflexivity, a refusal
to use intellectual capacities in other than myopic ways, and
avoidance of justifications. We argue that functional
stupidity is prevalent in contexts dominated by economy in
persuasion which emphasizes image and symbolic manipulation. This
gives rise to forms of stupidity management that repress or
marginalize doubt and block communicative action. In turn, this
structures individuals' internal conversations in ways that
emphasize positive and coherent narratives and marginalize more
negative or ambiguous ones. This can have productive outcomes such
as providing a degree of certainty for individuals and
organizations. But it can have corrosive consequences such as
creating a sense of dissonance among individuals and the
organization as a whole. The positive consequences can give rise to
self-reinforcing stupidity. The negative consequences can spark
dialogue, which may undermine functional stupidity.
Full article :
Introduction
An enormous body of
writing on knowledge, information, competence, wisdom, resources,
capabilities, talent, and learning in organizations has emerged in
recent decades, in which there is a common assumption of ‘smartness’.
Although this term has not been used systematically in the study of
organizations, it captures the underlying premise that a vital issue
for contemporary organizations is their ability intelligently to
mobilize cognitive capacities. This assumption is evident in claims
that ‘as the pace of change increases, knowledge development among
the members of the company becomes the key to competitiveness, to
remaining in the front line . . . Business has
simply becomemore knowledge-intensive in all companies, and corporate
investment in education and training is more extensive than ever
before’ (Wikström
and Normann, 1994, pp. 1–2). Some authors point out that
‘workers' cognitive and social capabilities are elements of the
forces of production and, over the long term and in broad aggregate,
the pressure of competition forces firms and societies to upgrade
those capabilities. The development of capitalism thus tends to
create a working class that is increasingly sophisticated’ (Adler,
2002, p. 392). Similarly, two management gurus (Davenport
and Prusak, 1998, p. 88) have suggested that the most effective
way for firms to remain competitive is to ‘hire smart people and
let them talk to one another’.
A. Cuvelier,
http://saintremi.com/
